The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-11-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 4, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 4, 2021, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE __X___ Nate Wheeler ___X___ Maria Lorcher __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Nick Grove __X___ Steven Yearsley (6:07 p.m.) ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X____ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for November 4th, 2021. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and be able to comment. Please note that we can not take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. With that let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Black Cat Industrial Project, H-2021-0064 and Moshava Village Subdivision, H-2021-0067, will only be opened for the sole purpose of continuing these items. It will open only for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify -- testify on those particular applications we will be -- not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 2 of 47 MOTION CARRIES: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 21, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H- 2021-0061) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H2021-0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Village Apartments (MCU- 2021-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have four items on the Consent Agenda. We have approval of minutes for the October 21st, 2021, Planning and Zoning meeting. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Elsinore Daycare Facility, Conclusions of Law for Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation, H-2021-0062 and Village Apartments, MCU-2021-0008. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] RESOLUTIONS [ACTION ITEM] 5. Resolution No. PZ-21-07: A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian, Idaho, Validating Conformity of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Linder District Urban Renewal Project with the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is Resolution No. PZ-21-07, resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian validating the conformity of the Urban Renewal Plan for Linder District Urban Renewal Project with the City of Meridian's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 3 of 47 Comprehensive Plan and we have comments and presentation. Starman: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This item that's just mentioned pertains to the proposed Linder District Urban Renewal Project. There is a map exhibit on your screen, as well as in the chambers here. Generally bounded -- the proposed district is generally bounded by Ten Mile Road, Overland Road, Linder and Interstate 84. So, it's that -- I will call it a gray-looking area on the map exhibit before you. This may sound a little bit familiar. The Commission just in the last 30 or 45 days considered something similar to this and that was in the context of two other urban renewal projects. That was the proposed Northern Gateway project, as well as the proposed annexation to the Union District as well. So, this is somewhat similar. The item before the -- the Commission is fairly narrow in that the process under state law to approve a urban renewal project of this nature requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a determination or a finding that the proposed project is in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and in this instance the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as well, which is a component by means of reference within our Comprehensive Plan and so the item before you this evening is for the Commission's consideration of the resolution that would make that finding and transmit that finding to the City Council. In your packet is a very detailed report, really well done, I think, by our planning staff Brian McClure and others in the Planning Department. They did a nice job of analyzing the proposed Linder District Project and vis-a-vis the city's Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the -- I guess importantly is the -- the conclusion from that analysis also in your report and in the packet you have here is -- and I'm going to read a couple of relevant sentences from page two of the report in particular, but the first being that the staff finding or recommendation that all of the described projects are intended to directly implement the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. None of the other listed activities are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, then, the staff recommendation being to approve the resolution identifying the proposed Linder District as conforming to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and that, as I said, there is some extensive analysis in your packet. Also the -- the plan itself, as well as supporting documentation and we have also included for your reference a copy of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as well. So, the recommendation to the Commission this evening is to adopt the resolution before you that makes that finding of conformity between the proposed Linder District Urban Renewal Project and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Happy to stand for questions and I will note that we have a number of folks on Zoom that are available to answer questions as well. I think also our eco nomic development administrator Tori Cleary is in -- in the audience over to the side. Also on Zoom we have our planning manager Caleb Hood. Brian McClure I mentioned is also available. I think Ashley Squyres is available, but she was -- might be running a bit late and, then, also a consultant that's been helping both the Meridian Development Corporation and the city is Meghan Conrad with the law firm of Elam & Burke. So, all of us are available to answer any questions you might have. But , again, recommendation would be to adopt the resolution before you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And let the record show at this time Commissioner Yearsley is present. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 4 of 47 Yearsley: Apologies for being late. McCarvel: No worries. Any questions for staff? Comments or motions? Seal: It looks fairly straightforward as far as what the intent of it is and it makes sense to extend out -- extend this into this area in my opinion. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Get a little more cohesion for what the city intends to do with this area. McCarvel: Okay. Can I get a motion to adopt Resolution No. PZ-21-07? Seal: Madam Chair -- well, question. Are we recommending approval of the adoption or are we -- Starman: Your -- your action item this evening would be to adopt the resolution before you and, then, that will be transmitted to the Council, which will have the final say, of course, but the action before the Commission is to adopt the resolution. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move that we adopt Resolution No. PZ-21-07 as presented. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt Resolution PZ-21-07. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: So, at this time as we move into the public hearing process I will explain just a few items. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After the 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. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you are here in person, please, come forward. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken , we will invite any others who may Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 5 of 47 wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a phone, please, press nine and wait for your name to be called. I'm sorry. Star nine. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please be sure and mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will no longer have the ability to speak and, remember, we can -- will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. With the -- when the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a final decision or recommendation to the City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 6. Public Hearing for Black Cat Industrial Project (H-2021-0064) by Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 350, 745, 935, and 955 S. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 122 acres of land with R-15 and I-L zoning districts. McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for item H-2021-0064, Black Cat Industrial Project, for the purpose of being continued. Does the staff have any comments? Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. City of Meridian. There was a posting issue that was required. The proper acreage, as well as the legal description, was not posted properly -- or was not notified properly, so we cannot move forward. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time could I get a motion to continue H-2021-0064 to the hearing date of November 18th, 2021? Lorcher: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 7. Public Hearing for Moshava Village Subdivision (H-2021-0067) by JUB Engineers, Inc., Located at 4540 W. Franklin Rd. and 4490 W. Franklin Rd. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 6 of 47 A. Request: Annexation of 5.14 acres of land with the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of a total of 30 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 6.48 acres of land. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0067, Moshava Village Subdivision, and the applicant is requesting continuance to perform revisions to the proposed plat for discussions with staff and ACHD. When is our next opening for this one? A good date? Dodson: Sorry about that. Madam Chair -- McCarvel: How much time do they need? Dodson: Whatever date is available. They -- I don't want to go into too much detail, just because I don't know exactly what they are going to propose, because I haven't seen it yet. So, I would say -- McCarvel: Do we want 60 days, then, or -- Dodson: Probably not that long. I would say at least the -- I would say the second hearing in December is probably acceptable. McCarvel: Okay. Madam Clerk, what's our agenda look like? Weatherly: Madam Chair, for the second hearing date in December there is nothing on it yet. On the first date in December, December 2nd, there is already three. McCarvel: Okay. Since we are not sure what they are going to propose let's do the second date in December, which is -- Weatherly: Be the 16th, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion to continue H-2021-0067 to the hearing date of December 16th? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0067 to December 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 8. Public Hearing Continued from October 7, 2021 for Elderberry Estates Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 7 of 47 Subdivision (H2021-0044 and H-2021-0005) by Angie Cuellar of Mason and Associates, Located at 1332 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 0.66 acres of land with the O -T zoning district. B. Request: Short Plat consisting of 4 buildable lots. McCarvel: Next we will continue Item H-2021-0044 and H-2021-0005, originally heard on October 7th, and we will move forward with the staff report at this time -- or comments from staff. Tiefenbach: Thank you. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if you recall just very quickly, this is a rezoning to OT to allow three lots. It was -- originally it was four. It was going to be four duplexes. Now they are proposing three duplexes. The property is located at the southeast corner of Fairview and North Meridian. Again, it's presently zoned C-C. At the October 7th meeting the Planning Commission continued this to today. The Commissioners -- and here is a picture of the plat. So, there -- this is Lot 1, this is Lot 2, this is Lot 3. Two -- three duplexes, garages, parking here. The reason why the Commissioners continued this is that there was some concerns expressed from the business owner to the northwest, who owns the accounting business, and the issues were that -- if you look at this plat right now you can see a hatched line. There is actually more than this, but there are access easements that cross the property here, here, here and here. There was some discussion and city attorney confirmed that -- that the -- it sounds like the access issue -- the access easements for the purpose of access -- the reason why I say that is because the property owner to the northwest believed that the -- the -- the project would eliminate the parking that they had to the south of their business. Again , we are not aware that there is any legal right to park there . Our understanding is are those for access only, good or bad. So, the Commissioners, first of all, asked the applicant to see if they could discuss the parking and access situation to the property with the property owner. The second recommendation was whether or not the applicant could push the duplexes further to the east to provide anymore parking. I want to mention that I believe each duplex has 12 parking spaces, which is significantly more than they are required to have under the minimum code. My last understanding -- well, no. And so with that I guess I will entertain any questions if you have any. There hasn't been any -- sorry. There hasn't been any additional changes to what you are seeing here this evening. I think the applicant has a presentation to talk about that , but they have not changed the design. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Long: Name is Jonathan Long. Address is 1859 South Topaz Way, Meridian. As far as the northwest owner at 1414 Meridian, we -- we came to a mutual agreement. We could not move the duplexes further east. We have got a 16 foot sewer line easement there and it just really hedges things in. So, the agreement that we have come together -- or that we have come to with 1414 Meridian is to share expenses for relocating the fence to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 8 of 47 their backyard and actually converting their backyard to additional parking for them and so that will all be paved and it will provide -- I think it's six parking spaces for that. It's both residence and business. They live in the place and they also operate three business -- three businesses out of it and so they were very satisfied with that and no longer had concerns over parking. There is on file that I have turned in , the very last page, there is a representation just of that backyard being converted to parking area. Just for reference purposes if you guys wanted to see that. Tiefenbach: Is that this one? Oops. I'm not sharing. Sorry. My apologies. Hang on here. Is that the right graphic? Long: It would be the very last -- very last page. There we go. So, you will see the -- yeah, the northwest property there. You will see it's represented with three parking spaces and so all that is currently backyard, but it will be converted to parking area. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I think there was also an issue with the mailboxes. Did that get resolved, too? Long: Yes, sir. Contacted USPS and Chris down there said not a problem, he was going to wait for project approval first and that he said to contact him and he would start the process and -- and go forward from there. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, the other business there to the south of the one -- I think that's the accounting. Long: So, actually, accounting is directly west. The one to the south is a -- both a personal residence and salon. Cassinelli: Okay. So, they are out of the picture on this one, though? So -- but everybody -- we are all happy with all the neighbors? Long: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: Everybody's made good? Okay. Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And thank you for doing this, working with the neighbors and being a good neighbor. It's important here, so -- in having that done and reducing this down from four to three . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 9 of 47 Providing the additional parking. I could support this for sure. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. And being open -- did we have any public testimony on the parking issue on this application? Okay. I'm assuming applicant has no further comments. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for H- 2021-0044? Seal: So moved. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0044 -- and, I'm sorry, I guess we have H-2021-0005. Would you like to amend your motion? Seal: Yes. McCarvel: And second? Lorcher: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H- 2021-0044 and H-2021-0005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I will let the people who were here and made comments at the last one jump off on this. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I still feel like I would prefer to have this commercial, but the applicant has worked well with the neighbors, has a good plan for how to get this in here. I'm okay with this moving forward. McCarvel: Any other comments or motions? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner. Lorcher: I'm also with Commissioner Grove on this, changing it from commercial to residential. It just seems like a very small space to put in three residential buildings that would potentially hold ten people, maybe 12 people per building, adding additional traffic concerns on Meridian Road, which is already busy enough as it is. But I don't have to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 10 of 47 live there, so I guess if they can sell the product, then, I can support it. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: If nobody else wants to jump in I can throw a motion out. McCarvel: There you go. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers H-2021-0044 and H-2021-0005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 7th, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2021-0044 and H-2021-0005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 9. Public Hearing Continued from October 7, 2021 for Pera Place Subdivision (H-2021-0056) by Leavitt & Associates Engineers, Located at 4600 W. Daphne St., 4546 W. Daphne St., and Parcel S0427325702, Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 6.84 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 single-family detached building lots and 7 common lots on 16.63 acres of land. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is also an application from -- being continued from October 7th, H-2021-0056, Pera Place Subdivision, and we will begin with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Give me one second just to get everything pulled up, please. Okay. So, as noted the application before you was continued from October 7th due to a site posting error. The site is correctly posted now, so we can move forward. The application is for Pera Place Subdivision. The requests are for annexation and zoning, rezone and preliminary plat. The entire site consists of three existing parcels, one of which is already zoned R-4 and the other two are currently zoned RUT or Rural Urban Transition in the county. History on the site is only for that R-4 parcel, which was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 11 of 47 annexed and was approved for a preliminary plat in 2007. It has an existing DA. I -- I guess the other history -- before the two lots that are in the county currently it was part of a county subdivision. The future land use designation on this property is medium density residential, as seen on the screen to the left. This whole area is medium density, which allows residential uses from three to eight dwelling units per acre. The annexation and zoning of ten acres of land is before you tonight, with a request for R-8 zoning. There is also a rezone request for 6.84 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district and, finally, a preliminary plat consisting of 65 single family detached building lots and eight common lots on 16.63 acres of land. The property is approximately 16 and a half acres and includes three parcels as noted. The area to the north of this project is developed R-4 zoning with detached single family homes and an R-8 subdivision as approved to the west of this project, which would be these -- this property here and this property here. This is a separate property. That is Brody Square directly to the west. I guess this is better. And those are currently zoned R-8. The applicant is proposing Pera Place with 65 building lots, which equates to 3.91 units per acre. It's proposed use of detached single family is an allowed and anticipated use in the requested R-8 zoning district and as well in the medium density residential future land use designation. The area of R-4, as noted, created a county enclave in 2007 that is still owned by the same property owner and is referred to as the Poorman outparcel. This enclave is still not annexed and -- and was approved for a preliminary plat in 2007. The R-4 area. The plat has long expired, but the DA does still exist. Because the applicant is requesting to rezone this area to R-8 -- I'm sorry. The applicant is requesting to rezone this R-4 area to R-8 to match the requested zoning of the ten acres to the south, as well as that to the west. Because there is an existing DA tied to a plat that is no longer valid and the applicant is requesting to rezone this area, the applicant should submit a DA modification to replace the existing DA and incorporate its boundaries within the property included as the annexation request. The applicant did not submit that at this time, which was known. They need to submit that prior to going to the City Council hearing. That way it can run concurrently and it can be heard at the same time at Council. In general staff finds rezoning this area from R-4 to R-8 a logical expansion of existing zoning near the corner of Black Cat and McMillan. Staff finds the proposal to annex ten acres and rezone six and a half acres to R-8 offers an appropriate transitional density to the already developed R-4 to the north. There are two existing county residential single family homes on the ten acre site to the south -- or these two lots here. And both will be removed upon development of this project. The Poorman outparcel has a septic tank drain field on the small area just north of their property line near Black Cat Road, which is -- if you kind of see it's noted as a separate lot right here. The -- yeah. Again, the applicant has proposed a nonbuildable lot over this area. Staff does not support the inclusion of this nonbuildable lot for the shared use, but, instead, recommends the developer and the Poormans enter into a separate agreement that defines how this area is to be used and maintained. The proposed use of detached single family residential for the site , with an average lot size of 6,700 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,300 square feet. The proposed use, lot sizes, and lot alignment should provide for a development that is cohesive with the adjacent development to the north and planned development to the west and southwest. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with subdiv ision design and improvement standards, which is UDC 11-6C-3. The -- only one of those standards that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 12 of 47 they do not comply with is the length of the cul-de-sac shown as West Philomena Court. The -- because it is greater than 500 feet. It is approximately 550 feet in length. The original plat did meet this requirement and included an access easement to the Poorman -- to the Poorman outparcel. However, I recommended that the applicant extend Philomena Court further to the west, so that actual right of way will touch the property line of the Poormans. The reason for this is because easements are more difficult to track and maintain than right of way being up against the property line. So, because of that the applicant understood, they extended the cul-de-sac there, so all it requires is a Council waiver by Council to extend it over 500 feet and, again, it's only 50 feet longer than what the permitted by right length is. Access to the site is proposed via multiple local street connections and there are no arterial or collector street connections. You have the North Sepino Access, which is an existing stub street at the north property line. Then you have two new north-south local street connections to Daphne. So , the only existing streets right now are Daphne Street here and the North Sepino, as well as Black Cat, I guess, but there is no access to there. Direct access at least. So, they are proposing to extend North Sepino Avenue and provide two new local streets here and also provide an east- west street here, because Brody Square will construct Avilla Drive at this location. The applicant is proposing a common drive off of North Sepino Avenue, which is this here. By glancing it looks like there is five lots, which does not comply with code. However, only the rear three are taking access off of the common drive. These two are taking access off the North Sepino, so, therefore, the common drive meets our common drive standards. All local streets are proposed as 33 foot wide street sections, with a five foot attached sidewalk, within 47 feet of right of way meeting ACHD policy. As noted, the applicant is proposing to construct or extend West Avilla Drive and, then, stub it to the east property line in order to provide future connectivity to the east. Five foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all local streets and there is five foot detached sidewalk proposed along Black Cat within the required street buffer. As proposed this project and the existing conditions of the Poorman outparcel not being annexed into the city would create a sidewalk gap along the east side of Black Cat. This gap would be approximately 190 feet in length and equates to the Poorman outparcel's frontage along Black Cat. The sidewalk gap that is -- that would persist is why the project did require ACHD commission approval, rather than just staff level approval. The ACHD commission did approve the proposed layout without this additional sidewalk connection, but instructed the applicant to try and obtain additional right of way and buffer and sidewalk along the outparcel frontage . It is my understanding that did not occur, but ACHD has approved it. Staff has recommended a condition of approval along the same lines, because this sidewalk gap is going to persist as a major issue for safe access to Pleasant View to the northeast here. Consistent with other approvals in the area, staff does recommend an interim sidewalk along the outparcel frontage for pedestrian safety and to eliminate the sidewalk gap until frontage improvements are required and that would be when the Poorman outparcel is either annexed and redeveloped or if Commission and Council decided that needs to be part of it now. The applicant is proposing approximately 2.84 acres of qualified open space , which amounts to approximately 17 percent, which exceeds our minimum requirements by quite a lot. Their three qualified amenities are a shade structure with a picnic table , the tot lot, and, then, 20,000 square feet of open space in excess of the required code levels. Staff finds that the proposed open space and amenities are thoughtfully designed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 13 of 47 and placed for appropriate recreation and use. The applicant has stated they are in agreement with the staff report and, therefore, staff recommends approval of the subject applications and I will stand for any and all questions. McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward? Dodson: He will be online tonight. Weatherly: Mr. Lardie, you have the authority to unmute yourself and turn on your camera. Lardie: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I did. Is that -- is that getting you any feedback? Madam Clerk? McCarvel: Pardon me? Weatherly: No, it is not. Lardie: Thank you. Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you this evening. Dan Lardie. Leavitt & Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa, Idaho. Again, before -- before you tonight the Pera Place, it's -- glad -- glad to be here. Is my PowerPoint available, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: You do have permission to share your screen, Mr. Lardie, if you would like. Lardie: Oh. I do not have it. Weatherly: You should have a share screen button at the bottom of your -- or, excuse me, at the bottom of your Zoom screen. It's a green share screen. Lardie: I do have that. I do not have the -- I do not have the PowerPoint handy. So, can I -- can I go back to -- can I borrow some of -- some of Joe's presentation, please? I apologize. I -- it's not on this computer and I wasn't -- I sent it into the clerk's office this morning. Dodson: Dan, give us a second. We got to find it. I didn't save it to our file, because I thought you would have it. Lardie: I'm sorry, I -- thank you, Joe. Dodson: We got it, Dan. Hold on. Just tell me when to click and I will be your hands. Lardie: Thank you. So, again, I want to say thank you for -- to staff. We really do appreciate it. Joe -- Joe and Bill has been great to work with this -- this -- this time and it's been -- it's been kind of an interesting -- it's a nice project. I think we have -- they -- with working together with staff I think we have come up with something that's pretty nice. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 14 of 47 Next slide, please. So, some of the particulars from Joe's staff report are up there in the upper -- upper left. I'm not going to regurgitate the information to bore you to death, but -- and, then, the general location over here on the left, the -- the piece on the north that is that R-4 parcel currently zoned, we do know we need to get a DA agreement or a DA modification application into Joe. I have it prepared, I just haven't submitted it just yet. It will probably be on his desk -- or at least in the Planning and Zoning Department tomorrow and so we are aware of that. Next slide, please. So, over off to the left there, this is that sidewalk gap that Joe had mentioned in his staff report. This is also mentioned in the ACHD staff report. They didn't make it a requirement for us to construct this. T hey did ask us to try and work with the landowner to come up with a solution of that and possibly gain that right of way. We have had some discussions with the Poormans. They are concerned and hesitant about being forced to annex and -- and losing their access off of Black Cat with the construction of that, so they are not quite ready to participate. I think as time goes on we still will attempt to work with the Poormans to the best we can. Next slide, please. So, this just -- just an overall of the -- the open space. That open space up in the upper corner, the large mature area, it is full of mature trees. We are going to work with an arborist to try and groom this for homeowners use and we provided a pathway out to the Black Cat sidewalk extension and in Joe's staff report they asked for some lighting and I think that's -- we are all agreeing -- in agreement on that for public safety. There is that existing septic. This -- this existing septic was kind of an interesting situation. It cropped up and we thought that maybe putting it on its own separate lot was the right way to go, but it sounds like an agreement would be easier and more palatable to the city and I think we are all in agreement with that. We might need some help with the city with some -- some of that language that they might be agreeable to. Next slide , please. Just an overall set of the landscape plan that we have , showing -- showing the mature landscaping up on the left and some of the ponds and just trying to give an overall so you could piece it all together as I go through the next few slides. Next slide , please. Again this is that area with a -- with mature trees. We are going to work with an arborist to try and preserve those trees and groom them to make that area suitable for the homeowners use and keep it for public safety. The neighbors to our north , they really enjoy this area and it was a -- it was a -- in our neighborhood meeting it came up that they really wanted to try and preserve those areas -- this area. We thought it was beneficial to both us, to them, to the city and to the future homeowners. Next slide, please. So, this one -- we have these ponds here and people might be scratching their head going why are all the ponds there and the ponds are there for irrigation supply for our pump station. Our pump station is at the north end of that lot right -- just south of Avilla Drive. Those ponds need to be aerated in order to make -- so we are not creating a bunch of places for mosquitoes to breed. There is a pathway along there to provide a scenic route from Daphne up to Avilla, along with a pergola and a picnic structure about lot -- between Lots 13 and 14 there on the -- on the right. Next slide, please. This is the -- the existing sidewalk coming down from Black Cat. This is our northern connection. It also shows that area of trees that will definitely need to be groomed and maybe even a little bit of thinning to try and gain it to make it -- to make it safe for the public and for just general enjoyment. Next slide, please. And, then, this is -- this is a hard picture to look at. This is -- this is the Poorman's frontage road. This is their frontage right along -- right along Black Cat and with the mature landscaping and it's -- and it's pretty well groomed, they are -- that -- it's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 15 of 47 one of the reasons why they are hesitant about putting a sidewalk in . That sidewalk will probably take out -- if it goes in at its regular location it will probably take out the majority of those trees. If we try and do something temporary, if we can get that approved through the city, we might be closer out here to the -- the hedge up front closer to us. Next slide, please. So, with that thank you all and I appreciate your time and I look forward for your approval and I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant or staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Dan, those ponds for irrigation, will they be dry in the winter? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner, more than likely they will be dry and they are -- they are to be -- we have had -- we are showing some landscaping to them, so they don't look -- so, they are not just big dry basins. So, that, hopefully, they will be aesthetically pleasing. That's our goal. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The Poormans, they own this entire R-4 piece; is that correct? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, they do. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: So, it was my understanding when -- as this is all county land, these were all five acre parcels; is that correct? And so two of them, plus a little extra, have been proposed for the Pera Subdivision; is that correct? Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, this parcel up here, if you can see my cursor. Lorcher: Yes. Dodson: This is already existing R-4. It was zoned in 2007. These are five acre parcels, yes. From -- they are currently in the county. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 16 of 47 Lorcher: So -- but the rest of Daphne going along to Joy, they are additional five acre parcels; correct? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: And so have developers bought the -- are there single family homes? Dodson: They are -- I believe it's one single family home to the east that takes up -- it's the same owner for both five acre parcels. Lorcher: So, the transition between a five acre parcel, low density to R-4 -- I know it's county versus city, because we are -- we are annexing this. Isn't that what we are trying to do tonight? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: Is -- is that the right transition for this area? Dodson: As this gets built out, yes, same as it was when Brody Square got approved to the west when there were these two existing homes next to -- almost the exact same number of lots, if not the same number of lots. It's anticipated for all of this. These are the dominoes that are falling. It's coming from this side, as well as from the east with some of the Vicenza Commons. So, it's happening. Lorcher: And has the single family residents to the east objected or they -- did they make any comments one way or another? Dodson: There is no written testimony on this. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Dodson: Madam Chair, I did want to make one comment about the ponds that -- Brody Square had to do the same thing, because there is apparently an issue with pressurized irrigation out here, so they need the ponds in order to provide what we require for pressurized irrigation. It's not something that they just decided to throw in there to have a water feature. So, that's -- that's why we are not counting any of that as an amenity. McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. We have a few people signed in . One -- or excuse me. The first one is Paul Poorman. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 17 of 47 Poorman: Madam Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Paul Poorman and I live at 6230 North Black Car Road in Meridian and I realize I don't have a lot of time, so let me just say that I'm hoping that the P&Z will vote to approve the Pera Place Subdivision development agreement and let me tell you why. Several months ago we got a notice that there was a neighborhood meeting to discuss a proposed subdivision on the land that we are selling to Applied Media Corporation and, of course, we went to the meeting. We saw the plan and had several issues that we brought up. Many of our neighbors also brought their own concerns and voiced them. Having been to many of these meetings I wasn't expecting much. Well, a few of us noticed -- but there was a young man seated in the back of the room who didn't say a word . He just listened and a month or so later we got notice that there was going to be a second neighborhood meeting and this was a surprise, since usually they only have one meeting. Well, it turns out that the gentleman in the back of the room at the first meeting was Tony Tseng, who is their primary developer for Applied Media, and contrary to most of our expectation, his engineer showed a completely different plan than the first one and, lo and behold, he had incorporated most, if not all of the suggestions that myself and our neighbors had voiced at the first meeting. Instead of trying to ram a subdivision down our throats that would make him and his company the most money, he actually had a plan that his company would take a hit on, but for the surrounding community was going to be a much more inviting neighborhood and so the only suggestion I have is that the required lights along the path through the existing forest be pointed down and away from our house , which is to the south of this, if that's at all possible. So, I said at the beginning here I hope that P&Z will approve the plan. Tony is a first class guy who is working to build a community that will be a desirable home for generations to come. Meridian needs to encourage more developers like Tony to build our future here. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Gayle Poorman. G.Poorman: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Committee. My name is Gayle Poorman and I live with my husband at 5230 North Black Cat Road in Meridian. In an effort to support this Pera plan -- development plan, but not repeat too much of what my husband just testified, I would like to provide you with a little background regarding our property, if you would humor me for a little short story here. Almost 40 years ago when we bought our property that area was open farmland. Excuse me. Our acreage was open field grass. Paul decided to plant spruce trees, some 500 of them. In the middle of the desert I asked. And the -- and the endeavor became lovingly known as Poorman's Folly. Over the years as we watered, nurtured, and planted hundreds of more trees of different varieties, such as Scotch Pine, Ponderosa Pine Norway Spruce, Ash, Willow and Birch, people would come to us wanting to purchase our young trees for landscaping around their homes. So, we purchased a tree digger and thus began our small business. As we kept many of our trees for our own enjoyment , our little forest grew into the haven -- into the haven that it is today for all those quails, pheasants and migratory birds of all kinds. What remains is a little island of habitat in the sea of subdivisions and our new neighbors love our little forest. What inspires me about the Pera Place development -- and I would like to also thank Tony Tseng -- is that he has found a way to preserve some of our forest by making it into a community park. My hope Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 18 of 47 is that this park will be a place where families can enjoy a little bit of nature in their own backyards. As older trees die or are thinned perhaps young children, students, can come and plant new seedlings and learn about trees and the animals that thrive there. Thank you for listening to my story and I hope you will approve the Pera Place development.. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Joel Tague. Tague: Good evening, Commission and Madam Commissioner. My name is Joel Tague. 4625 West Twisted Creek Drive. Might I get you to put that map up, the very last one that you had, those green ones. Let me echo some of what the Poormans said. Grateful for the efforts the developer has put in place in terms of maintaining that green space. Mrs. Poorman failed to mention that in addition to the -- to the birds that she stated, there is also a family of -- call it a family of hawks -- a nest and hawks were raised there, as well as owls you can see and -- kind of a rare sight. So, we are grateful that they have kept that. There is a -- a couple of changes or concerns that I have and they are generally minor, especially this cul-de-sac -- I guess I have to say how grateful we are for the way they have moved that around. It does show a path and I know this may not be the way that it actually turns out, but on the record I would at least like to point out that that path being up next to a fence line -- and I live there to the north. Maybe like that more in the middle of the -- out more exposed than up next to a fence where at least half the residents could see what's going on behind that fence might make sense. A general concern -- and I don't know how it can really be addressed. The -- the transition between R-4 and R-8 really kind of happens along our fence, as opposed to within the development. We would like that change, but if we had to choose -- if I had to choose between having R-8 homes next to R-4 subdivision and -- but not be able to keep the green space, I think I would -- I would rather have that green space, because it is so nice and invaluable I think, especially in what will become evermore a sea of homes and less natural space. That's all . Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Gabi Harter. Madam Chair, that's the last we have indicating a wish to testify tonight. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anybody else on Zoom or in the room that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you. For -- just to address a couple of comments that were made. The Poormans are concerned about the lighting and we all agree that the lighting needs to be ambient enough to provide for safety , but not overbearing to -- to kill off the light -- the -- the nature or even disturb the neighbors. I think something can be worked with on -- on that particular case. Mr. Tague, the pathway being up against the fence, yes, we drew it in that way. I think we can certainly pull it away from the -- away from his fence line a little bit and -- and maybe even a lot, we will have to determine with the field and, then, some of the trees that are there and, then, of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 19 of 47 course, trying to protect the trees as we go around with the pathway. We don't want to try -- we want to try and preserve as many trees as possible, but we can certainly pull that pathway off away from that fence line. With that I can stand for any questions and look forward to your approval. Thanks. McCarvel: I do you have one question. Are you in agreement with everything that's in the staff report at this point? Lardie: We are in agreement with the staff report. Dodson: Madam Chair? It's Joe. McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Dodson: Sorry. Every time. It wasn't Andy this time. I just wanted to address those same things. The lights -- I didn't put a specific example in my staff report, but I'm thinking more of those -- they almost look like bollards with a little like -- the ones that you see on like a college campus pathway kind of thing. Just ambient lighting, nothing to really keep it wide open spaces like a ball field or anything, just -- just to help with being able to see through it. That's all. And, then, the lot sizes between the R-4 and R-8, I knew that was going to come up, so I -- I understand the desire if it was similar zoning or lot sizes. Usually a way to mitigate that would be to line up the lot lines as much as possible. They clearly have space where they can adjust some of those lots and push them a little further west and line those up a little bit more and that would probably help I think with that concern a little bit. They have ample open space, so I think they -- they could easily make that accommodation. And the interim sidewalk issue, I -- the way that I have seen it done and understood -- hopefully you can do it within the existing right of way along Black Cat. The interim is usually where ACHD allows an extruded curb, a vertical curb on the edge of the right of way or on the edge of the driving surface. That way people can , then, walk on the shoulder almost as a sidewalk as an added form of safety to be able to traverse that area, because there will be sidewalk along this entire eastern corridor, except for that gap. So, it is an important gap. It is not intended, based upon my conditions, to remove any of those -- the lush vegetation, et cetera, there. At least not with the interim. And it would not have to align with what would be required otherwise. That's just why it's an interim. If Commission and Council determines, as I discussed in my staff report, that there should be further improvements to that frontage, that is a separate conversation and I do understand that as well. If that includes recommending denial for this or approval with the proposal to annex the Poorman outparcel, understood as well if it doesn't, but there is a requirement to get the frontage improvements. That also makes sense. Both of those things were discussed in my staff report, but I could not find that I had the authority within code to require it. But with annexation and rezones there is vast di scretion by our elected officials. So, I leave that up to you. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 20 of 47 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a question for Dan, but in the meantime, Joe, do you have a plat map of -- is it Brody Square and how that would fit into this? But, Dan, can you comment -- the -- the -- that shared driveway, those lots -- and I'm not looking at it now, but the lots off that shared driveway are larger than all the rest. How did you come to that configuration, as opposed to kind of following the lot sizes across -- across that one street on the -- off the cul-de-sac? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, the -- those lots -- that area seemed to be -- seemed to fit okay with some of the -- the one we had the R-4 to the north and there was the -- the Peras themselves, who own the five acres to the south, they are looking to relocate to those and they requested specific -- specifically larger lots in this -- and, then, so -- between us, them, our developer -- and that's where they decided that they would like to put those. It did provide a little bit of a buffer for the R -4 on that side, since we have all that green space on the west side for buffer. It kind of balanced out. And as far as Joe's question -- or not question, but his discussion about maybe widening those lots up on that R-4 side, maybe providing a little bit wider of a lot and lining those up, I believe that can be done and I think everyone would be fine with that -- on our side at least. Cassinelli: Does that mean you would remove a lot in there? Lardie: We probably wouldn't lose a lot. I believe we have enough room -- we would lose a little bit of open space, but since we are so -- we have so much open space. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, I have -- the best I can do for you to kind of line it up is just zoom in on this wonderful map we have here. Well, that's all it's letting me zoom in. But you can kind of see -- they -- they lined up in that center where the -- the west boundary of this and, then, Brody Square, they lined up the lots line to line. So, it's the same density along the shared boundary. And, then, they have the same lot depth on the north side of West Avilla Drive. Cassinelli: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Any other questions or are we ready to close the public hearing? Sorry. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we close the public testimony for File No. H-2021-0056. Grove: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 21 of 47 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0056. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I'm going to let other people go first to get -- see what other folks are thinking. The R-8s -- I have got no issues with at all. It's the R-4 that really -- that's the rub for me with that. The outparcel there that's not going to be annexed , I -- we have just run into problems with -- with when that has happened in the past where now all of a sudden you have this really small piece of land and , then, when it sells you have to figure out how to develop it, you have to figure out what to put on it, how it's going to fit in. We always feel sorry, because now they are a really small piece of land and how do you get them to get into city services and things like that. So, I can see a lot of problems from that. That and their septic drainfield is -- is -- I mean they are going to have their septic drainfield is moving into this as part of another piece of property that's wholly owned by someone else or response -- you know, the HOA would be responsible for that, so I see that being problematic as well. I just -- I can't wrap my head around the R-4 part of this moving forward. Again, the R-8 pieces of it -- I mean that seems to blend in well. It works well. It's laid out well. It has a common area. I mean the ponds are in there because they are going to need them. But even the back end -- or the east end of the R-4 with that common drive, I mean it's going to be an allowed common drive basically because of a t echnicality, because they are going to face those other houses to the west and I would have much rather seen the -- I think it's Litchfield --go up and connect in and get rid of that common drive, because the common drive -- I mean if you have got trash cans and services and things like that, you have a Super Bowl party back there or whatever, it's just going to be crammed full of cars. It's going to be hard to get in and out. I just see that as nothing but problematic. Understand why they want to do it , if they are trying to accommodate the homeowners so they can still have their little piece of heaven back there and -- I would probably want the same thing, but from my perspective it just makes it even -- makes something that's problematic even more problematic in my mind. I just -- I mean, again, if we were just looking at the R-8s I would have no issues with this, but as a whole I can't support this. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: And I realize we are -- we are working -- that R-4 piece is such a -- an odd piece of land, the shape of it, and, then, those two five acre parcels, it really combines to be -- it's -- it's pretty tricky. But I would -- I would like to -- I would like to see some other configurations here. I -- one of the things that gets me is the way that -- with Brody Square -- and Joe's comment was the dominoes are falling. What's going to be -- what -- what's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 22 of 47 going to happen here was the additional five acre parcels, as they do fall, this is just going to be square blocks from Black Cat to Joy with the same lot lines, the same configuration. I wouldn't mind having that kind of configuration south of Daphne , but north of Daphne I think it's -- there needs to be -- I don't know what the word I'm looking for is, but there -- there needs to be a little bit more undulation in the -- in the lots and in the streets here to match the -- what's to the north of it. It's -- it's a tough one. I have got -- I have got an issue with that private drive, too. It's -- the forest over there is fantastic. You know, that's kind of a unique feature. It's just a -- it's a tough one to try and figure out how to get everything to fit. But I would like to -- I would like to see at least better transition throughout that whole northern thing. They did it with those lots off the private drive. They put the private drive in there to keep some big lots at the request of -- of the seller. I would like to see that somehow incorporated all along there and -- which would require -- I'm scratching my head looking at this, trying to figure out how you -- how you fit it, because it is such a -- such a unique lot -- it's such a unique shape there. But I have got issues with it. I don't like the square layouts, the square blocks that are going to wind up going from Black Cat all the way down to Joy. I don't like the private drive. I would -- I would -- I would love to see some other iterations of how this is laid out. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I understand the concerns that have been brought up by the -- my fellow Commissioners, but I think one of the things that I'm looking at is , you know, the Brody Square that's already in, it's already been approved, and where those streets line up and just the configuration that, you know, we are left with here there is -- there is going to be limited options as we go forward with this. I typically am not a fan of shared drives , but having these lots be a lot bigger I'm not as concerned and if we look at the other parcels that are around it, the lot lines line up really well, which is not always something we are going to see, especially when we are having different transitions. I think one of the things that stands out to me for this project is the -- the public testimony that we did receive tonight was all positive for the developer, which is -- I would say uncommon for most of the projects that we see. You know, most people don't want to see things that are -- any development that comes next to them and I appreciate the comments that we got and the applicant working with those neighbors to address the concerns before they came here tonight. With that I'm -- I'm in favor of the project and would be happy moving forward with it. McCarvel: Any other comments? I would -- I'm not as opposed to the way -- I think it's a decent layout for what's around it, but I do have an issue with that small piece being left out of everything and remaining not in the city, because it's developed all around and it's -- I know we have had similar things in front of us before and it's kind of -- you want -- I'm sorry, but the owners -- and I don't blame them. They want their cake and they want to eat it, too. They want to keep their little spot in the county, but they want to sell off and develop everything around them, but, then, that leaves that piece that doesn't get incorporated into anything. At the very minimum I would say it's got to be -- you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 23 of 47 the sidewalk and everything has to go through . I am with Commissioner Seal, I hate leaving that little piece out. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. I don't think we should be -- if we are going to do this we are all in or we are out, in my opinion. We need to clean this up and -- and get it -- making those sidewalks is going to be a critical path and I have lived in areas in the city that were finally starting to get sidewalks out there after 15 years for access and so I don't think we should allow that. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Yeah. I would like to just see it cleaned up just a little bit. I like the idea. I like the use of it. But you only have one time to do it right and I think it would be best if we put that little bit of effort into making that just a little cleaner. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Instead of possibly doing a denial, do we want to offer a continuance so that the developer and the landowner can talk to them about possible incorporation of that parcel together and maybe a different design for the shared driveway? Dodson: Madam Chair? Thank you. I -- I know that the applicant would appreciate a continuance versus a denial. However, it is my understanding that they have had multiple discussions with the -- the owners of the property already and I don't know if -- I don't know what a continuance would garner in -- in those kinds of -- getting to the outcome that we want, I guess. I don't know what that would do. I think a recommendation of approval with conditions or denial with some recommendations is going to garner the same kind of outcome. If there is going to be discussions they will occur anyways. I think if we -- because they have to wait for a DA mod to come through and we got to do all that anyways, this will probably be out in six weeks. So, I think there is time in that area, rather than a continuance, if Commission is comfortable doing that. Again, that's just from my understanding of previous conversations that have occurred. I don't know if anything will come from that. McCarvel: I guess I would be comfortable with recommending approval with certain conditions, because I do -- I mean there is -- you know, you can tweak the layout forever, but I mean the fact that they are keeping this little forest there, the green area, I think is -- there is a lot of stuff right with this, but I do think leaving that one little section out of it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 24 of 47 and having everything develop all around it without holding that piece of property to the same standards is making things difficult long term. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And I don't mean -- yeah. And I agree it's nice to see that they have given some thought to keeping that area wooded and nice and approachable. When I first look ed at it I was kind of scratching my head like what in the heck is going on there, but, then, when you look at it, even on Google Earth or something like that , you understand that it's -- it would be appropriate to keep that there. It's nice to keep it there. That way I mean when you are driving along Black Cat Road, you know, which is going to be an endless sea of fences and garages, you see a nice little wooded area, it's -- it's nice for sure. That said I think without annexing the entire property it's just going to lend itself to problems that we don't want to have in the future and that we have experienced in the past with pieces of property like this, because they will -- it will come back in and it will be difficult to integrate and it's going to be -- you know, I mean we are already talking about jogging a sidewalk around or working around that and -- you know, I mean I -- I can see why, you know, folks would want to sell it and keep their piece of it, but at the same time it has to fit with what we are trying to do with the city and what our charge is in doing that and I just don't think it does that. I just don't know how we get to a recommend for approval with something in there that, you know, we can't require them to annex into the city. I d on't see any way to do that. That said we can deny a project until they do do it. So, I don't know that we have any other choice at this point if a continuance isn't going to get us there. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just add to some of the conversation to try to put things in a little more context for you. So , keep in mind, even with annexation there is -- there is other things we have to analyze here . It's -- sidewalk is important, but, then, we also have to look at the Poorman's access, because now they have access to an arterial roadway. Now do we want them part of the plat , because we need a common lot along the front edge of their property so that we have a consistent landscaping along the whole corridor. So, that's why when we were having many discussions with the Poormans and good to see you this evening. Glad you could join us. There are some challenges with hooking the home up to the city utilities . There is a great expense to do that and there is some t ypography issues. So, yes, I don't disagree with you, we don't want to create enclaves and that's why we brought it to your attention in the staff report, but you have to realize when this was annexed in 2007 I worked on the project. There was no other subdivisions around this property except to the north. So, at that time it made sense to just annex that piece in, because it was tying into Volterra North, which is a development to the north. Now that we have gradually increased development around them they have -- essentially we have created the enclave and they finally have the ability to sell their property. So , that's why we are here this evening. We have heard you loud and clear that both the Commission and Council they don't want enclaves; right? We want to grow in a logical manner. But this -- this project -- this property does have some challenges with it. I'm not trying to sway you one way or the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 25 of 47 other, I'm just trying to give you some context as to why it's not been included and some of the conversations that we have had with the Poormans not only this year, but probably over the last several years as they have tried to do something with this piece . Because, like I said, it's been annexed in for quite a while and we have met with many different developers on this and from our perspective what we have -- we have had at those pre- application meetings we have discussed them acquiring more property to make this a more viable project and that's what this applicant has done. They have acquired ten more acres. They are trying to connect it with this piece and tie it into the property to the north, which allows people to get to the school. So, you know, in our opinion, yes. Is it -- is it a perfect situation? No. But what staff tried to do is, one, give you the ability to analyze that and talk about it this evening and see if it does make sense , but we are also providing a stub street, essentially, the cul-de-sac and utilities. So, if and when the Poormans are ready to move farther out in the country or change their lifestyle, this property more likely could develop with two or three more lots with a common drive off that cul -de-sac. Now if you would like you can certainly continue this and ask for the applicant to bring forth a redevelopment plan for their property, so that you can see how it could integrate with the rest of the surrounding developments. That's certainly within your purview as well. So , I will go ahead and quit rambling a litt le bit here, but I thought it's something you can at least consider as you deliberate this evening. McCarvel: With that any other thoughts at this time? Grove: Madam Chair, it sounds like we kind of have a split going here, so just trying to get an idea of -- if people's opinions have changed on any of this, like how our -- so, I guess we could just throw out motions, but maybe have some idea of -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think we have had several -- so, I think that's -- run through some more thoughts before and get a direction now that we have heard other comments . Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: In the subdivision that I live in there is actually one parcel that is actually still Ada county and the rest of it is the City of Meridian and it's right smack dab in the middle where it's not on a main street, it's kind of stuck in the middle. It was the original farm house that was part of the subdivision and that particular homeowner chose to keep two to three lots for themselves and they also chose to stay in part of Ada county. The only thing that we notice -- I mean there is still sidewalks, because the subdivision kind of built around it and the only thing we noticed is that the trash compan y is different. So, different trash company comes for one person in our subdivision , compared to the rest of the city and it seems to have incorporated. The only difference with this one is that it happens to be on Black Cat. So, I think the conversation is among sidewalks and access to a busy street, as opposed to one parcel being part of a subdivision. I'm -- I'm inclined to approve this and deal with the homeowner -- homeowner's parcel that's in Ada county and incorporating into Meridian when the family feels that they no longer wish to be part of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 26 of 47 Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I guess in light of wiser words, I will say, I -- ultimately I think the subdivision is actually a nice layout. I don't have a problem with the three lots on the private drive and the overall layout looks good. With that I would be in favor of approving this project. The only two conditions that I would recommend is realigning the lots up against the northern property to line up with the lots -- the adjacent lots and to move this pathway a little farther south away from the property. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Yeah. In light of what staff shared, I, too, have kind of changed my position on it and it's something that I would approve. Like I said , it's a good layout, it's a good use of the space. There is a lot of open space there. I do like the idea, too, that Commissioner Yearsley mentioned about moving that pathway down further to the south in order to make room for that property, but -- again, especially since he's saying this is kind of in the -- as we were growing we were annexing and we might have some culpability on kind of creating this as Meridian grew. So, yeah, to speak -- and there has been a lot of talk with the developer and staff over many meetings. It sounds like this is -- they are trying to do what they can in order to make this work. So, I would be in favor of this. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: It sounds like we have the makings for a motion. Grove: It does. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2021-0056 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 4th, 2021, with the following modifications: That the pathway in the northwest portion is realigned and that the lot lines for the Block 1 of the northern portion be realigned with the lot lines to the neighbors to the north. Yearsley: I will second that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval for H -2021-0056, Pera Place Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Madam Clerk, would you do a roll call. Roll call: Wheeler, yea; Grove, yea; Seal, nay; Lorcher, yea; Cassinelli, nay; Yearsley, yea; McCarvel, yea. McCarvel: Motion carries. Congratulations. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 27 of 47 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO NAYS. 10. Public Hearing for Meridian Swim School (H-2021-0069) by CSHQA, Located at 2730 E. State Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an indoor recreation facility on 1.1 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is H-2021-0069, Meridian Swim School. 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 1.1 acres of land. It's zoned I-L, light industrial, and is located at 2730 East State Avenue. A little history on this project. A conditional use permit was approved back in 1991 for a planned unit development general, which included the subject property. Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use nonresidential. A conditional use permit for an indoor recreation facility or a swim school as proposed on 1.1 acres of land in the I-L zoning district, consistent with the mixed use nonresidential future land use map designation and the previously approved planned unit development. Access is proposed via one driveway from East State Avenue and one driveway from North -- North Rosario Street, both existing local streets. ACHD has approved the location of both driveways. A ten foot wide landscape street buffer is proposed along these streets in accord with UDC standards. A revised site plan and landscape plan was submitted that complies with the conditions in the staff report. Parking is proposed in excess of the minimum UDC standards. Seventeen spaces are required, 48 are proposed. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed structure . Building materials consists primarily of EIFS and stone with glazing and wood accents and trim and metal roofing. No public testimony was received. The applicant did submit a letter in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Brozo: Mandie Brozo. CSHQA. 200 Broad Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I'm a little short. Sorry, guys. Thank you, Madam Commissioner, Members -- or Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Tonight we are here to talk about the conditional use permit for a interior recreational facility, Adventures In Aquatics. Current zoning is light industrial. This is an approved use within the zoning with the conditional use . We feel that it is a great buffer between the office to the east and to the north and, then, the industrial to the west and, then, open space to the south. We do have the owners here tonight if you guys have any specific questions about operation. Otherwise, you know, we think that it would be a great addition to that neighborhood. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you. Brozo: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 28 of 47 McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: That being said, is there anybody in the room or on Zoom that now wishes to testify on this application? So, I assume the applicant has no further comment. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0069? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close public testimony -- public hearing on H-2021-0069. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Motions? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I think we need more public -- or not necessarily public swimming, but swimming in Meridian. So, this is a good fit for that particular area. McCarvel: Yeah. I think it's great little use. All indoor and it's -- the area is fine. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I think this is one of the few slam dunks we see kind of come through , especially -- I mean staff likes it and the applicant is in agreement with everything staff's recommended and they have redone everything. So, I will just throw a motion out if that's all right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0069 presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 4th, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2021-0069. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 29 of 47 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 11. Public Hearing for Outer Banks Subdivision/The 10 Meridian (H-2021- 0063) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at the Southwest Corner of W. Franklin Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 25 buildable lots on 36+/- acres of land in the R-40 and C-C zoning districts. B. Request: Conditional use permit for a multi-family development containing a total of 516 residential dwelling units consisting of (364) high-density apartment, (126) flat and (26) townhome style units in the R-40 and C-C zoning districts. McCarvel: Last on the agenda this evening is H-2021-0063, Outer Banks Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last application before you is a request for preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. This site consists of 36 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and R-40 and is located at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and South Ten Mile Road. This property was annexed earlier this year with the requirement of a development agreement that has been executed. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use commercial, high density residential, and mixed use residential in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 25 buildable lots on 36 acres of land in the R-40 and C-C zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases with the portion east of the Kennedy Lateral developing first per the revised phasing plan. This is just opposite of what they had originally proposed. So, if you saw that in the staff report previously it is flipped. West Cobalt Drive, a collector street, is proposed to be extended from Ten Mile Road to the west boundary of this site consistent with the master street map and the transportation system map in the Ten Mile Plan. The eastern portion of Cobalt, including a bridge across the Kennedy Lateral, will be constructed on this site and the western portion will be constructed on the adjacent property to the south prior to or with the first phase of development. The street section map in the Ten Mile Plan depicts this segment of Cobalt as Street Section D, which is a residential collector street with two travel lanes, bike lanes, parallel parking, eight foot wide tree lawns and six foot wide detached sidewalks as shown there in your bottom left of the screen there. Staff is recommending Cobalt is constructed in accord with these guidelines in the plan , which is acceptable to ACHD, provided the on-street parking -- on-street parking is located to the west of the horizontal curve for Cobalt and is located beyond the sight distance required for the access proposed on Cobalt. The access -- excuse me. The applicant is proposing a three lane roadway with a center turn lane, bike lanes, and detached five foot wide sidewalks, which isn't consistent with the plan. A construction and cooperative development agreement for the construction of Cobalt has been signed between the subject property owner and the property owner to the south in accord with the development agreement provisions. However, it may need to be amended based on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 30 of 47 required design of Cobalt. Staff has included condition -- a condition of approval in the report that the road be designed consistent with the street section in the Ten Mile Plan. Access is proposed via West Franklin Road, a commercial arterial, South Ten Mile Road, a residential mobility arterial and the future extension of West Cobalt Drive, a residential collector street as shown on the plat and as noted in the staff report. No stub streets are proposed to the west as none exist to this site. The property of the west was recently developed. So, unfortunately, there is no opportunity for interconnectivity vehicular wise. With development of this property, based on ACHD's traffic counts, Franklin Road will operate at an acceptable level of service, but Ten Mile will not. It is anticipated to go from level of service D to F. An acceptable level of service is E. Common open space and site amenities. The R-40 zoned portion of the development meets the minimum UDC standards for such. The Kennedy Lateral bisects this site and is proposed to be piped throughout the development. The proposed conditional use permit is for a multi-family residential development containing a total of 516 residential dwelling units , consisting of 364 high density apartments, 126 flats and 26 townhome style units is proposed in the R- 40 and C-C zoning districts. A mix of one, two, and three bedroom units are proposed. Vertically integrated residential is also proposed, but it is not part of this application, as it's a principal permitted use in the zone, so it's not part of the conditional use permit. Common open space and site amenities are proposed for the development that comply with the minimum standards. Off-street parking is proposed as shown on the site plan. A minimum of 898 spaces are required for the multi-family residential development, 902 spaces are proposed, which includes 62 compact spaces, which are not allowed unless they are provided above the minimum spaces required. At least 58 of these spaces are required to be converted to full-size spaces in order to meet the minimum parking standards. A minimum of 31 spaces are required for the clubhouse . Thirty-seven are proposed. Staff is concerned there may not be adequate parking for the site to accommodate the guests, even with the full-size parking spaces provided. The Commission and Council should determine if the amount of parking proposed, which meets the minimum standards in the UDC, if the compact spaces are converted to full size spaces, is adequate for the development. If not, additional parking should be required as a condition of approval of the conditional use permit. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the various types of multi-family residential units proposed in this development, including the high density apartments as shown . And I will just go through these a little bit slower, so you can take a look here. These are perspective drawings of those same high density units. These are the flats perspectives and these are the townhome style units. All of the structures appear to be of a high quality of design and consists of a complimentary mix of materials, including wood look siding, Hardie siding, metal siding, stucco, tile, stone veneer and glazing and colors. The high density and flats are four story buildings and the townhome style buildings are three stories in height. The high density apartments will have secure entrances and will be accessed by an internal hallway. There has been no written testimony received on this application. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report with a couple of additional specific conditions for the preliminary plat and conditional use permit that require provision of public art within the commercial and residential portions of the development consistent with the development agreement, which requires the project to comply with the design elements in the Ten Mile Plan and there are specific conditions Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 31 of 47 written on your hearing outline, but that's -- that's what they pertain to and they -- it isn't a new condition, it's just specifically outlining it so there is no confusion that is required. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward? Shrief: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. I'm going to do the introduction for the project. My name is W endy Shrief. I'm a planner with JUB Engineers and my business address is 2760 Excursion Way here in Meridian, Idaho. We are really excited to be here. We went through a pretty lengthy entitlement process to get here . We six months ago annexed this piece of property in with a development agreement and as a part of that development agreement we saw you guys once and we saw City Coun cil twice and we have a really detailed concept plan that was a part of those hearings that we did. I think it's -- it's been really helpful to have that guiding document as we design our preliminary plat and as we put together our conditional use permit application for the multi-family. Our preliminary plat we are -- actually what we are proposing is very straightforward and in line with our original approvals. We are -- we have a 36 acre property. We are at that southwest corner of Franklin and Ten Mile, so this is an area that's prime for development and where you want to see higher density commercial . When we were at Council they had us up our commercial , which I think really -- I think strengthen the project and we reoriented the position of some of the multi-family buildings to centralize our open space and I think it's -- it's a stronger plan than what you saw when we first came through. The preliminary plat -- what we are proposing meets all dimensional standards for the R-40 area, which is south of the Kennedy Lateral and for the C-C area where we are north of the lateral. S onya has been great to work with. We have been -- probably about a year we have been working on this project all together. So, we are excited to be here again. We are going to bring up -- we had a -- we had a couple of conditions we are still working through with -- with staff and ACHD regarding that the Cobalt Road section and the cul-de-sac. We will come to full agreement prior to Council on that, but we are pretty close, but we are still in discussion on a couple of points, but really pretty close. So, I'm going to go ahead and introduce our project architect Lane Borges, who is going to run -- walk through the conditional use permit application and we are here for questions this evening. Borges: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Lane Borges. I'm representing Ten Mile Franklin, LLC, tonight in this application for the conditional use permit. We were, obviously, before you, as Wendy said, maybe six months ago with this project and since that time I guess I -- there we go -- we have worked through City Council, as she indicated in a couple of meetings , and there were a few -- not huge, but some notable changes that I wanted to maybe just walk you through this evening and your understanding of the current proposal that's before you. At the time we originally came to you we did have a relatively detailed conceptua l plan and I don't know how much of this you may remember, because I realize that you see a lot of projects every -- every meeting, but I wanted to just touch on a couple of things that Wendy mentioned, changes that were made in the overall project. Conce ptually it remains the same. The frontage of the project along Franklin and Ten Mile consists of five what we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 32 of 47 call commercial development pods and within each of those pods are a combination of either commercial buildings, vertically integrated mixed use buildings, and in one of the pods a multi-family residential building. The primary core of our residential component is the interior portion, the central portion and the southwest portion. I have kind of highlighted in color the building and the elements that are part of our conditional use permit. So, everything that you see in gray there is stuff for future approvals that are part of the commercial. The three probably major things that are different from the project you saw -- Wendy mentioned that the Council did ask us to increase the amount of commercial space that we had in the project. They felt being mixed use they wanted to see a little bit more commercial, a little bit less residential. So, we added about 15 percent of the proposed square footage back into commercial space and we probably decreased -- I don't recall the exact number, but about 20 to 25 residential units in the process. So, we still have the three different residential types that are part of our -- I will call our core residential project and that is the high density, which are the buildings to the southwest, the blue ones. Excuse me. The flats, which are kind of the peach colored buildings in the middle, and, then, the red colored buildings are our three story townhouses. Th e little building in the middle is our clubhouse, recreation center, and co-workspace. So, I wanted to just quickly again revisit the concept behind this development . It was really oriented around trying to make this a very habitable , pedestrian friendly community of live, work, and have fun and the way we chose to do that was to really embrace and incorporate some of the guidelines in the specific plan within our project . I'm sure you are well aware that the specific plan has particular street sections that are designed for various public roads within the community, but we took the concept of those and incorporated them into our private streets within our development. So , you will see the streets that are highlighted in red there are our primary circulation and along those streets they are designed with parallel parking, bike lanes, street trees, street furniture and those kinds of things to try to give the project the feel that the city is trying to achieve overall throughout the community. The next slide just shows the focus that we put on pedestrian circulation. So, all those yellow lines represent pathways, sidewalks, and ways to interconnect the various residential elements, as well as the commercial elements and access to the community. One of the other important things that happened during our Council and review process was that we ended up doing -- putting the -- the Kennedy Lateral underground. When we were before you we had the Commission's recommendation to Council to leave portions of the canal open and in detailed communication and working with the irrigation district it was determined in the end that it would be better suited to place that canal within pipe underground. So, in one respect we gave up a little bit, but we also, then, created an opportunity to create larger open spaces that didn't have to be fenced off for security purposes and that visually at the end of the day are easier for us to control and keep in a very attractive manner. The last probably major element that changed was the location of one of our buildings and it was one of the high density buildings. Can't quite tell if my cursor is working here. It is the one kind of in the center of the site. It's called HD3 and originally that was an L-shaped building, just like the other two that are along Cobalt and there was a parking lot between that building and kind of the clubhouse and the Council felt -- and we think appropriately so -- that that building would be better suited if it was oriented to the open space and t he parking was kind of put behind it, rather than the center of the project. So, we redesigned Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 33 of 47 that building, reoriented it, and were able to create a really nice integration. You will see how the open space goes between buildings one and two, crosses the driveway, goes to a large open space that really links building three with the common and community areas. So, we think overall it was -- it was a really good change. I want to just run quickly through the elements and I know you have seen some of th ese images already, so I won't dwell too much. But the first one is our clubhouse. As you already saw in the phasing plan, we are going to be starting construction with the residential components that are north and east of the canal and within that first phase we are going to sequence -- we are not going to phase, but just because of limited resources it's not really possible to have that many buildings come up out of the ground exactly at the same time. So , we are going to sequence it by starting with the clubhouse. As soon as we get the foundation done there we will move to the next set of buildings and keep going. It doesn't do us much good to have a finished clubhouse without having apartments available. So , what's highlighted there shows the clubhouse and these are some of the images of what the clubhouse will look like. So, high quality, a lot of design detail and thought have gone into these to create a very vibrant and really interesting and exciting place. The second element is our flats and these buildings are slightly different than the high density in that they are four stories, but they have parking under a portion of the first floor. These buildings also are street fronting and street facing, so in concert with the specific plan all of the ground floor units of these buildings have street front entries. They also have entries internally in the building, because these are internally loaded buildings, so almost like a hotel there is a corridor down the middle and apartments on both sides. But the lower floor units will have entrances from the street, which is consistent with the specific plan and these are some of the images of what the flats buildings will look like. Again , a lot of variation in architectural vocabulary and materials and colors. The third element is the townhomes. So, these are individual residential units that are three stories. A garage and an office or bedroom on the first floor, the primary living area on the second, with kitchen, dining room, balcony, living area and, then, two bedrooms on the third floor and this is the renderings of the various units. And, then, the last element in which will be our phase two construction for the residential component is our high density housing. So , similar materials, but slightly different detailing and such in these buildings to differentiate them. This is the building that now fronts on the open space and that concludes my presentation and if there are any questions I would be happy to try to answer them at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I will try and be brief, but all of mine are parking or transportation related, so with the apartment section, with those garages, are those intended for parking and, if so, do you have a plan to make sure that they stay parking on that apartment section? Borges: Yes. The -- the managers and the operators recognize there is always a concern about how garages are used and that's part of the reason why we didn't really provide a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 34 of 47 lot more. You can see if you look at the design along the western property line we could aligned up I guess garages all along there. We kind of broke it up. We wanted to provide the ability to have some garages. So, some of the units will basically come with a garage at a slightly higher rent than the other units and property managers on site will , unfortunately, I hate to use the word police, but will police those to make sure that they are being used for automobiles and not for storage or other secondary purposes . Grove: And, then, follow up. We see the -- you know, in the staff report a parking -- there -- there is some parking concerns just in the number of parking spaces that are provided. Do you have any direct response to the line of concern? Borges: Well, I guess my best response is is that we have provided parking in accordance with the existing ordinances at the city and I don't want to seem flippant or , you know, negative, but it seems that if the city feels that there are issues with whether the parking is appropriate, that it's perhaps an ordinance issue and not an issue that should be imposed on a particular project. McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I mean the compact spots from -- correct -- don't count unless that's already over the amounts, so -- Borges: Yeah. I understand. If there was an error in the way that the spaces were designed and laid out and there is a condition that needs to be corrected, that certainly will be. McCarvel: Do you envision that you would have space to make that correction or are we talking about lessening units or what? Borges: No. At this point it's -- we just got the staff report, so we really haven't had a chance to sit down and analyze what the impacts of converting those spaces would be. I mean our parking is spread out in several -- in various areas, so it's not as if all the impact is going to be in one particular place in the project. We are hopeful, obviously, that the impacts are relatively minor and that we can absorb them , but I can't tell you exactly at this moment what the total implications might be to the existing parking count or whether that could have some effect on the number of units currently proposed. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I was in here when we went through the DA on this and Cobalt was a big -- big piece of the discussion there. So, after all this and going through everything with the agreement with the neighbor there, why did you guys decide to -- not to build that to the Ten Mile plan? Borges: Actually, I think I will let -- Hethe, would you like to maybe address that issue? He has a little bit more history on this topic. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 35 of 47 Clark: Hi, everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Nice to see everybody again. So, a little bit of history on that. The -- as you might recall, Commissioner Seal, that when we were before you before we had an ACHD report that indicated a 70 foot right of way width on that. The current ACHD report indicates a 70 foot right of way width as well. We have spent time with staff, we had conversations with staff about this during the pre- application meeting confirming the 70 foot right of way width and so we are -- have and have proceeded and have had conversations with our neighbor to the south based on a 70 foot right of way width. So, there has never been a -- a refusal to design that according to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. We to date have -- until the staff report came out had been of the belief that we were on the same page and that it was going to be a 70 foot right of way. My suggestion on that issue, Commissioner Seal, is -- and this is what I have discussed with Bill -- is that we look at what can fit within the 70 feet and, then, work that out to try to align the inconsistencies between the ACHD report and the staff report and that we do that between now and the -- and the Council meeting. With 70 feet there is room to do a significant amount. I would like to not have everything turned sideways as a result of that, because we have been very focused on trying to rely on the conversations that we have had with staff and -- and the right of way width that's been identified by ACHD. So, I hope that answers that question. It's not an -- not an outright refusal and we are going to continue that conversation with staff between now and Council. Seal: Okay. And I just -- so, you understand the -- I mean the concern is that we are already talking about meeting kind of minimalistic parking standards and we have big multi-family there where if there is no parking they are going to park on that street. We want to make it walkable, bikable, approachable, you know, in all of that. So, we want to make sure that that is maintained. I mean that's why they have that. So , hopefully, we will get to the agreement that includes and incorporates all of that into it. So, I'm sure staff will have some good ideas on that. Clark: Yeah. No. I appreciate that and we will work with staff diligently between now and -- and Council meeting to get that -- the issue resolved. Yeah. I will just leave it at that. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: When I looked at this design it all looked really nice , except for plat number three. What was the reasoning -- I understand that you wanted to put more housing in there, but you have four or five commercial lots and, then, residential lots in the same and, then, there is a street and, then, all the residential is on the other side. Just seems kind of an awkward space for the flats to be one -- on one side where it's all commercial and, then, have your residential on the other side. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 36 of 47 Borges: Well, actually we have -- I forgot to mention one of the other subtle changes that happened during our approval at Council is we actually included additional mixed use buildings. In the original proposal you saw we had three mixed use buildings that were primarily along the north-south access road that links Cobalt and Franklin and as part of our redesign process we have incorporated more. So , the peach colored building that you see, which is the residential building, is actually flanked by vertically integrated mixed use residential buildings as well. So, what we were trying to do was avoid having everything all on one side and kind of having this barrier and we were trying to -- I guess create as much activity and as much access off of these circulation streets as we could and we felt that if we kept all the residential on one side, then, it would feel like, well, that's all commercial and this is all residential and this really isn't the mixed use environment we were trying to create. Lorcher: What you are telling me is that if you are unable to sell the mixed use commercial that would turn into residential? Borges: No. What I'm saying is is those buildings -- although when you look at it on here it's like, well, you have an isolated residential building on its own, when, in fact, you have residential buildings on both sides of it as well. It -- the difference being they have commercial on the ground floor and, then, they have residential above -- Lorcher: Okay. Borges: -- and that happens again -- when you continue to the west there is another mixed use building in what we call pod three, which is the one on the corner. So, we have -- if you go from west to east we have a commercial building, then, we have mixed use residential, mixed use, mixed use, and, then, commercial. So, we are trying to create that integration. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Borges: Uh-huh. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I want to go back to the parking a little bit. I understand your wanting to adhere to code, but given the overall mass and size of this project I'm still really concerned about -- at this point in time you're going to have a lot of visitors come to different people at different times of this project and I think your parking is woefully under short . My opinion is if you are unwilling to consider more parking, I wouldn't mind continuing this until a date certain and we can work out an ordinance to fix that. Just saying my -- my opinion. McCarvel: Because I believe the -- there is a new one that started this year with additional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 37 of 47 guest parking requirements that I don't think was considered in that number either. Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, I appreciate your comment about that. When it comes to parking the city goes through an analysis when they do their ordinance and it's a scientific evaluation that comes up with quotas and ratios where we -- that we have to live up to in order to satisfy those -- those formulas. It's not a gut feel analysis that -- that results in those parking quotas and that's kind of the danger and you guys know I'm here all the time, you know, whenever there is something -- you know, a smaller subdivision, more dense subdivision, that's always a question that comes up, is there enough parking. You know, even though you met the code is that enough? You know, at some point we really do have to rely on the code and say, okay, if you met the code, then, you -- you have done what the city has asked you to do and I would just -- you know, I want to be careful in the way I say this -- you know, continuing an application in order to change an ordinance would be a very legally suspect approach. We vest as a matter o f law in the ordinance as it exists at the time of the application. So, yeah, we want to listen to your concerns. Absolutely. We want to do that. But, you know, we also know that there is a -- there is a rulebook -- there is a -- there are rules of the road that are identified in your code and we design according to that and we invest according to that and I think that that's -- that's a two-way street. We should get to rely on that as well. So, for what that's worth, Commissioner Yearsley. Borges: If I may. Commissioner Yearsley, I apologize if I made it sound like that we were unwilling to investigate the ability to add parking spaces. The staff recommendation , obviously, has left it up to the Commission and the Council to decide, you know, what is appropriate and I don't know that there is maybe anybody here tonight that's ready to tell me if you provide ten more spaces that's fine or 50 more spaces or 150 spaces. So, it kind of leaves us in a very vulnerable position . We certainly are willing -- because we already know we need to do some reanalysis of the compact spaces that in this redesign and reevaluation effort any place that we could add additional parking we will certainly do that, recognizing that there is a concern. So, again, I apologize if it made it sound like that, no, we are not going to do it. This is it or nothing. That's clearly not our intent. Yearsley: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Lane, can you -- the flat -- I think it's flat F3. Borges: Yes. Cassinelli: And you -- you have talked about that. So, we got the mixed use, the buildings that flank that to the left and right. We have got some residential in there; is that correct? Borges: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 38 of 47 Cassinelli: And, then, that pod to the -- in the northeast corner -- Borges: Uh-huh. Cassinelli: -- there is -- same thing. There is residential up in there as well. Borges: Correct. Cassinelli: Do you have the count -- because one of the things on parking -- and this is just jumping out to me. We have got a lot -- we got a fair bit of residential up there. We have got commercial up there. I don't see -- even if we met the parking in total, I don't see parking -- enough parking in those pod areas -- particularly that one in the middle with -- with the flat F3 -- for all that residential. Does that I mean those people are going to be parking down at the -- down at the south -- southwest corner and having to walk all the way over there? Borges: Okay. A couple of things to consider. One, the parking standards for the vertically integrated residential are different than the parking standards for the -- I will call it the conventional multi-family. They are actually lower. So, our requirement is lower. But we also in that area -- you have to keep in mind that that flats building has parking underneath. So there is parking there that's provided that you can't physically see on this plan and, then, also there is street parking. So, everywhere we have street frontage we have parallel street parking as well. So, the totality of it isn't just the spaces that you see behind the building, it's the combination of those spaces, the spaces under the building and the surface spaces along the street and there is -- I mean it's a fairly lengthy street section. There is a fair amount of street front parking there for those uses. Cassinelli: It -- Sonya, did staff look at how that parking was all laid out when looking at those -- those residential areas that are in those separate pods or was it -- was it viewed as -- in its entirety? Allen: Commissioner, I'm not sure I understand your question. The entirety probably. The parking calcs. The covered versus uncovered and the -- and the total amount of spaces were reviewed. Cassinelli: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: A little bit on the parking -- and we touched on it earlier with the garages. There is a lot of -- I can't -- there is quite a few spots that are garages and that's -- my mind has been changed on garages, to say the least. I used to think that they would come with, you know, kind of a higher tier place, which they tend to, but people still just fill them up with junk and park somewhere else. So, would you be willing to eliminate the -- the actual Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 39 of 47 garages and replace them with just covered parking? Borges: I'm not sure that I'm in a position to make that decision. I mean clearly it can be done. Physically it can be done. It, obviously, changes an amenity of the property that the developers would like to have in order to remain competitive with the other product in the area. So, it would clearly not be our preference. Seal: Understood. It's just something that has come back -- we have heard several times in several different places that they are expanding on that there is not enough parking and all the garages are filled up and people are just parking outside. So , that's -- that's always a concern with this when -- when we are looking at -- you know. And, again, you have -- you have met -- you know, you have met or going to meet the minimums. So, that's great. The minimums are kind of there. I mean I have a ten year old kid. If he comes home and has met the minimum, I'm not cheering for him. So, that's the way that I look at this. We have met the minimum. I like this layout. I like what you have done with the mixed use commercial. I'm a big fan of that. I think that it opens up a lot of opportunities we have yet to take advantage of in this community and there is some things about this, the walkability, the greenspace, the way the multi-family really kind of, you know, is centralized. The clubhouse looks good. But the parking is a big deal and it's always a big deal and it always comes back to bite us when we get it wrong. Generally when we hear problems of -- with this it's when we have multi-phased developments that are coming in, phase one goes in, there is parking issues, a lot of the people from phase one are in talking about the multiple phases saying the parking is horrible. You got to do something about the parking. You have to do something about the parking. So, this is our one opportunity to do something about the parking and hit something a little bit -- I mean if we want it to be upscale and we want it to be all those things , provide more than the minimum. I think that's the -- the key to, you know, kind of helping this move along a little bit. Starman: Madam Chair, I just -- I want to go back in the conversation about three to four minutes and Commissioner Yearsley's comment slash question and Mr. Clark's response. I will invite our planners to jump in, too. I would -- I would agree with Mr. Clark that the idea of continuing the hearing in order to amend an ordinance would not be a viable approach and would not be recommended by staff or by the city attorney's office. But I would add to that conversation this is a conditional use permit and you certainly do -- both the Commission and, ultimately, the Council in this instance, you do have some discretion relative to the conditions placed on the project and some of the issues that the Commission has highlighted today are all certainly appropriate topics in that context of placing conditions on the proposed project. So, that is within your purview and you certainly can address those in the conditional use permit process. McCarvel: Thank you. Pilegaard: Madam Commissioner, Commissioners, Erik Pilegaard, the developer, along with my partner Mark. On their garages, you know, we looked at The Lofts. We have looked at the projects across the street. They also have garages. They are at minimums. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 40 of 47 The project that we built over on Locust Grove, there all the spaces are full even, at those minimums, or what is required. If we take out the garages, yes, it will probably create some more stalls and we wouldn't have that issue , but from a management standpoint it's imperative -- it wouldn't make sense for that potential resident to not use that garage, because we are going to eliminate that space for them to park in. So , from a management standpoint we are going to ensure that they do not fill it with boxes . We do inspections and they are paying probably an extra 200 to 250 dollars a month to park a car in there. It would be much cheaper to park the boxes, you know, a quarter mile down where there are seven or eight mini storages that are available. So, I will direct the team on the parking issue to resolve the parking issue, because we do have areas -- during the piping of the canal there was roughly I think a 70 foot wide easement. But now that it's become piped that easement has been reduced to 50 feet wide. So , we have a little bit of latitude to pick up stalls. So, I think that with Lane and our team working with Bill and Son ya, we will not do the minimum, we will try to bring that up to where she gives us a better recommendation. But we agree with the staff 's recommendation that we are going to work out a couple little details. But you are absolutely right . But, again, if we are going back to a workplace, you know, and being a one bedroom, two bedroom, we really look for the cars to be more associated with the flats and the townhouses, because those are the two and three bedroom type units. So, where you have a studio, even though there might be a car or a 1.5 ratio, I feel the high density is going to park fine and with the commercial that we have we should be good , as well as the -- there is -- how many -- there is 15 spaces for the clubhouse. Thirty-seven. And that's calculated in. But that's also extra stalls. But -- and, again, it's in the center of the concept. But I agree with you, we don't want to go to the bare minimum. If necessary we will be happy to reduce some of the garages, again, to pick up more stalls, so it is used for parking. If you have a project that is overparked, you are going to say -- you are going to get to that, you know, reputation that there is not enough parking and it's not going to be good and healthy for that environment of the complex and so we feel that we will park it accordingly to get it to your satisfaction and I'm sure that we can work with Sonya and Bill to make that happen and it's heard, we recognize it, we are having the same issues that are going to be coming before you on the commercial pieces. I feel I can share that maybe there is a certain fast food person that wants to be here and we are probably not going to let them come here, because you know what the parking and the cars due to your development. So, we are very sensitive, our team is sensitive to it, and hope you can rely on our expertise to get it -- to get it there to be satisfactory. Thank you for yo ur concern. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I have something that kind of piggybacks on some of what we have been talking about. Is there a public transportation component that has been integrated into this to alleviate some of the parking concerns? I know that across the street , you know, they are going to be working with Valley Regional Transit to have the new fixed line bus route there. Have you been in contact with them and have plans for that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 41 of 47 Borges: There are no plans currently for anything of that nature. But I think it's a great idea and certainly something that we will evaluate and look into to see what could best help alleviate some of the concerns over the parking numbers. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Parsons: Madam Chair, if I can just chime in just real quickly back to City Attorney's office comments. Kurt's comments in particular. But I -- you know, the next round of UDC changes that are coming up and I have been asked to reanalyze parking for multi-family to kind of ease Commissioner Yearsley's commentary about looking at our parking standards for multi-family. It is on our things to do to see if we are hitting the mark on that. As far as the road alignment and some of those changes that you want to see , I want to be very clear on the record that it's really the offsite portion of Cobalt, not the portion that's part of this development. So, it's really right where it runs in front of those two high density apartments and we can be flexible. So, I think there is a good compromise there. Let us work that out with the applicant, ACHD, all of us get on the same page and make sure that we get an appropriate road section that is both safe for bicyclists, pedestrians, and potentially additional parking based on what I'm hearing from the Commission tonight, some on-street parking. I think there that can be achievable with -- with -- with some of this right of way here. So, let us work that out, get on the same page and take that forward with City Council, so -- and, then, like -- like the applicant said, the parking -- as you know we did change some of the parking standards. So, now studios do have a one -- one stall parking requirement. We have guest parking, one per ten -- one stall for every ten units and, then, also I don't know if the Commission is aware of this, but we now allow storage to be part -- counted as an amenity in an apartment complex. So, you can also have that as part of the development. So, just keep that in mind, too, that you may start seeing some of these come forward where they have garages slash storage units for the residents, so they can keep all of their stuff on site and still meet the code, of course. But that's all I had to add. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair, I have a question. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: This is a question for staff. I don't understand the service level portion from ACHD from D to F and what that means and -- could I have a little more context on just what that means in -- I mean I'm assuming that there is nothing we can do with that, but I guess more context. Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly we are not transportation authorities. We lean on ACHD to do that. But we all understand if we are going from a D to an F means the road is failing, essentially. We have got more capacity than what the road can handle and that's something -- that's why going back to your point about having transit having people live and work in the areas, it's important and that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 42 of 47 what the plan was built around. I know Commissioner Year sley is more versed in transportation issues, so maybe he can add some context to it, too. But, essentially, as we continue to grow and improve more developments in this area that road will continue to have more and more issues moving traffic and I know there is -- I know the applicant is working with ITD that try to alleviate some of those concerns and make some of those improvements. But, hopefully, they will be able to get that worked out in conjunction with other developments that are also coming your way very quickly. Yearsley: If I may. When they talk about level of service, like A to B, they measure the amount of delay, particularly at intersections, and -- and they -- they had a -- and I don't know the actual time frames, but like for an A has a certain amount of wait at an intersection, where F has a significantly longer weight at an intersection. So, basically, it's -- what we are meaning is it's becoming more congested and you are going to have longer times to get through those -- that area is really what it comes down to. McCarvel: Okay. Clark: Madam Chair, if I could. Hethe Clark again for the record. And, Commissioner Grove, the -- yeah, that was evaluated. ACHD identified it -- or went over the mitigation that would be requested as a result. They did not request any mitigation for that Ten Mile corridor and in -- in part that was because of some of these multi-use pathways they are going to be going in, pedestrian connections that are going to be connected -- added there and, then, they also looked at the completion of State Highway 16 and Chinden, thinking that that will also reduce some of the burden on Ten Mile. So, they -- they did look at that question and specifically identified what mitigation would be required and we are in agreement with that. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Yeah. I just wanted to reiterate for the applicant was -- I think a lot of the concerns that I'm hearing being brought up from my fellow Commissioners has more to do with making sure that this project stays viable and that the second phasing that we don't hit an obstacle to where all of a sudden more and more units have to be taken out or more amenities, more and more parking, and adds into a congestion level to where it's just not going to be enjoyable for the residents that are there. So , you know, those are good things to just heed and -- and understand, especially at a very -- that's going to be a major intersection moving forward. I like the use of the land. I like the use of the buildings. I'm to an agreement a little bit with the parking and, hopefully, hoping the -- hoping that that will be resolved -- or it sounds like there is some interest in trying to mitigate that. But I'm also hoping that a little bit of the traffic flow issues as this becomes busier and busier, with the commercial that's going on over on the east side and , actually, on the west side, too, that it just -- that it's just a long term, long -- long time viable project just as you guys want that to be, too, and just kind of having some heads up on some of these concerns. That's all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 43 of 47 Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, thanks for your comments. Just -- maybe just a couple of other logs to throw on that fire. You know, one of the things that we want as we are doing -- you know, looking at really important pieces of real estate within the city is the opportunity to have a mix of uses, so that people don't actually have to get in their car every time and, you know, this is one of the more prominent developments that I can think of in -- in quite a while that has that mix of uses -- different types of homes, different types of business opportunities, but in terms of the governance of it, I would just -- I just want to point out, too, that a lot of the parking that we are talking about here with these uses is counter cyclical. So, there -- there is going to be an opportunity where, you know, people are leaving the business areas that more parking might be opened up for the residential and vice-versa during the day while people are out to work and this will also be cross-parked through the entirety of the project and maybe that help s to answer Commissioner Cassinelli's question about that area in particular being underparked, where there will be the ability to park in other locations within what is a fairly large project with quite a bit of parking. So, hopefully, that helps to address some of the issues. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant before we close -- or before we move onto public testimony? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to comment on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we had one person sign in. That's JoAnn Butler. JoAnn's online. Butler: Thank you, Madam Chairman. JoAnn Butler. 967 East Park Center Boulevard. I don't have anything else to add tonight. I just did sign up in case I did want to comment. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anybody else on Zoom or in the room that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Does the applicant have any further comment? Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0063? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0063. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I will jump out. I like all the layout and everything, I just -- I mean the parking does need to comply with our code, which it does not at the moment, so -- and I think there is opportunity to work with that. I think the -- I have -- I know the garages can be a problem for storage, but I think it is a nice amenity, especially with the level of customer that they are looking at for these high -- high density areas. May appreciate the garages for their cars, but I -- I would like to see, absolutely, that they work towards having enough Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 44 of 47 regular size parking stalls and, then, obviously, working on the issues with Cobalt. I think that's something that they -- it sounds like that can be handled between now and Council. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: In all I mean it's -- it's a neat project. There is a lot of great aspects to it, where it's going to go. I have got multiple concerns, though. Commissioner Seal brought up the -- you know, hitting the minimums on parking and parking is -- it's -- once it's done it's done and you can't -- you know, I mean it's difficult to add more. We are just at the -- you know, we are barely at the minimum, depending on -- on how we look at those -- those compact spaces. I would love to see more than just the minimum. One of the issues that I have with the garages personally is the garages that are there all the way across the lot. So, if somebody is in the building they are going to pay additional for a garage to have to walk clear across the parking lot. To me that seems like a recipe for storage. I know the applicant brought up the fact that they are going to be a couple hundred dollars more -- they are going to pay a couple hundred dollars to put boxes in. I think people do that all the time. The other -- the other big concern I have is -- is the level of service on Ten Mile and if this project will create a level of service that's unacceptable, just this project once it's built out and we are -- we are not even adding in everything else that's in the pipeline and that will come down the road , just going to turn Ten Mile into a parking lot, especially at peak hours. It already is. If anybody in this room drives that at peak hours it's already -- it's already very difficult to navigate. What the applicant brought up in comments and ACHD's comments were that they are hoping that Highway 16 will take some of that off. We can't assume that. You know, also -- and, then, the mitigation effects -- there -- there really is -- is none and the mitigation that ACHD called out for were -- were pedestrian and bike pathways. Well, that's -- that doesn't help the traffic flow. So, I have got concerns. I think it's a great project, but I can't -- I can't get behind approving the CUP tonight. I think it needs to be tweaked. All in all I like it. It's in a good direction. But it's a huge project and I think it just needs some more fine tuning. Grove: Madam Chair. I think, you know, we have belabored the point of parking for the most part. I -- you know, I think there is definitely room for improvement. However, I think it's more tweaks than really massive overhaul and so I'm -- I'm okay with it moving forward with the expectation that we build something in that -- you know, it's addressed and we probably lay out what we are asking for. I think that adding a public transport ation plan into this is going to be pretty important based on all the conversation that we have had tonight. I do like the layout. I think the integration of the open space really helps pull the project together and, you know, I'm a big fan of mixed use and I like that, you know, as you were indicating in -- in the presentation tonight that it's not residential one side, commercial the other, and calling it mixed use. You have done a good job of integrating the mixed use piece. You know, clubhouse, the amenities, they look amazing. I think, you know, there is room for improvement. I don't think for me it's going to hold it up, but I do think that there is -- there is changes that need to be addressed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 45 of 47 Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I like the project overall, like I indicated before. I'm hoping that we don't eat up too much of the, you know, nice amenities that are out there as far as the walking paths and the -- you know, just the -- the openness of some of that space in the middle. I really like that. I think that's a great amenity in and of itself. Honestly, I would love to see this project somewhere south central Meridian. Everybody I talk to is just dying for a Target or another store or restaurants down there. So, we seem to be getting plenty of them up in -- above the freeway. Just my own personal commentary. In case anybody's looking at some -- McCarvel: Developers looking. Seal: If any developers are listening that's a lot of the feedback I have been getting. Yeah. And I mean I will just say parking, because we have said it enough. I think you guys have heard that and, you know, you will work with staff. In fact, we will probably provision it that way, as well as the Cobalt Drive issues. So, I'm -- you know, I have to drive Ten Mile Road a lot. The reality is it's going to become the next Eagle Road where, you know, when I moved here in '95 Eagle was how you got around. Now I don't want to be on Eagle Road unless I have to be. It's just become -- it's just very congested. That's the price of growth I think, so -- I mean the indicator is that, yes, that's going to become more congested. We are going to have to probably wait for more than one light change in order to get through the intersection at peak times. Not ideal , not something I want to deal with, but it's the road that we have and I don't see how much more they are going to improve upon that to make it much bigger or more manageable. So, it's disappointing, but it's what we got. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I think there is a lot of positives to this development, too, because I also like to take a look at a piece of property and say, you know, obviously, highest and best use; right? That's the -- that's the standard on it. And, then, also replacement. So, what else would you want to see here that makes sense for the City of Meridian and also location and this to me is just a nice fit for what's going -- what's around it, across the area. It's on the going-to-work side. As the applicant stated, there will be even jobs created within this development to where somebody's commute could be a three minute walk and I also think that this green pathway here from Franklin Road that cuts through the lower third of the project and, then, comes out near Ten Mile Road, could almost be a showcase piece for -- for this area. People coming over, visiting family, friends, people coming to work and, then, hanging out in this little kind of like a central park feel with little walkway, pathway, things of that nature. So, I think there -- that there is a lot of benefit and -- and positivity and add to the community on this. No need to say anything more about the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 46 of 47 parking side. It's all been said. But I do know that when congestion gets -- my only other concern is just the -- the interior traffic flow, as some of these streets will just get more and more congested, that -- to just make sure that there is enough space for the interior movement and some of the cut-throughs that might happen and things of that nature and it seems like a smart thought out plan, working with other quasi-governmental agencies in order to make sure that all these things are -- are met. But it's a -- and I think most of the ideas -- I kind of go with Commissioner Grove on this -- that are just tweaks, but the -- the main components of this are good and I think most of that can be worked out with staff as staff also mentioned. McCarvel: Anymore comment? Yearsley: I already said my comments, so I'm good. McCarvel: Motions? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Take a stab at a motion here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2021-0063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 4th, 2021, with the following modifications: That the applicant work with staff to reconcile the differences on the off - site portion of Cobalt between a 70 foot right of way presented by ACHD and the Ten Mile Specific Plan and they also work with staff to improve the parking ratios to get them to a better standard. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H -2021-0063. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Madam Clerk, do you have the well defined -- Weatherly: Madam Chair, if you don't mind let's go ahead with a roll call vote. McCarvel: You bet. Roll call: Wheeler, yea; Grove, yea; Seal, yea; Lorcher, yea; Cassinelli, nay; Yearsley, nay; McCarvel, yea. McCarvel: One last motion? Seal: Are you going to say it official passed? McCarvel: Oh, sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 47 of 47 Seal: Because I'm ready for the last motion, too, myself. McCarvel: Yes. It has been moved and seconded to approve item -- or recommend approval H-2021-0063. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: One more. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK