Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-09-01
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 01, 2022 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Mandi Stoddard Commissioner Grace Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Wheeler Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the August 18, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stoddard, Seconded by Commissioner Lorcher. Voting Yea: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard, Commissioner Seal ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Tessera Ranch (H-2022-0020) by Providence Properties, LLC., Located at Northwest corner of W. Amity Rd. and S. Linder Rd. Continued to October 20, 2022 A. Request: Annexation of 123.39 acres of land with R-2 (27.37) acres, R-4 (5.78 acres), R-8 (73.43 acres) and R-15 (16.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 518 building lots (393 single-family lots, 75 townhome lots) and 50 common lots on 123.39 acres of land in the R- 2, R-4, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Motion to continue to October 20, 2022 made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoddard. Voting Yea: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 3. Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley Horn, located at 2620 E. Jasmine St. Continued to September 15. 2022 A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to continue to September 15, 2022 made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoddard. Voting Yea: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 4. Public Hearing for Chipotle Drive-Through (H-2022-0055) by Matthew Bush, WP5 Meridian II, LLC., located at 3004 N. Eagle Rd., near the southeast corner of Eagle and Ustick Rd. Withdrawn A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximately 2,325 square foot Chipotle restaurant with a drive-through to replace an existing and vacant restaurant located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. 5. Public Hearing for Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) by Alpha Development Group, located at at S0427438410 on the north side of W. McMillan Rd. between N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way, near the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Denied A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. Motion made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoddard. Voting Yea: Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Stoddard Voting Nay: Commissioner Yearsley Abstaining: Commissioner Seal ADJOURNMENT 9:20 pm Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 1, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 1 , 2022, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commissioner Patrick Grace. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Joy Hall, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher _X Mandi Stoddard (Vacant) _X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace X Andrew Seal - Chairman Seal: Good evening, everyone. It's a big crowd tonight, so I will start off by saying welcome friends and neighbors of Meridian. I would like everybody to be on their best behavior tonight, so it's not a pep rally, so, please, no thunderous applause, boos, cheers or anything else along those lines. So, we are all adults here, let's get along like adults, present like adults and this should go fine this evening. With that welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 1 st, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and Clerk's Office, as well as the City Planning Department. 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, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot 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 as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel and you can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with the roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Files number H-2022-0020 and H-2022-0045 will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to a irregularly scheduled meeting. File number H-2022-0055 will be withdrawn. Just for reference that's for Tessera Ranch, Kingstown Subdivision and the Chipotle Drive- Through and those items will appear only for those purposes. So, if there is anybody Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 2 of 53 here tonight to testify for those applications we will not be taking testimony on them this evening. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Lorcher: So moved. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. No opposed, so motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the August 18, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent -- adoption of the -- the Consent Agenda and we have one item on the Consent Agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the August 18th, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Stoddard: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. No opposed, motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is 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 have signed up on our website or in the back in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you come to the microphones in Chambers. You will need to 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 -- on the screen and you or the clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA -- and let me be clear about this -- where others in the hearing are willing to give their time to you, meaning they give up their ability to speak, because you will speak for them, you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 3 of 53 will be given ten minutes. Otherwise as an individual you will have three minutes to speak. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or in the Zoom app, press raise hand button, or if you are only listening on a phone press star nine and your name will be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as the computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard by the applicant -- after all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing, the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Tessera Ranch (H-2022-0020) by Providence Properties, LLC., Located at Northwest corner of W. Amity Rd. and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 123.39 acres of land with R-2 (27.37) acres, R-4 (5.78 acres), R-8 (73.43 acres) and R-15 (16.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 518 building lots (393 single family lots, 75 townhome lots) and 50 common lots on 123.39 acres of land in the R-2, R-4, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Seal: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2022-0020 for a continuance to October 20th, 2022. So, if somebody would like to give a motion on that. Lorcher: Mr. Chair, I would like to motion that Item No. H-2022-0020, request a continuance for October 20th. Anything else? Seal: Is there a second? Stoddard: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue File No. H-2022-0020 to the date of October 20th, 2022. All in favor say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 4 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley Horn, Located at 2620 E. Jasmine St. A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Seal: Okay. So, we will now open Kingstown Subdivision, No. H-2022-0045 for continuance to September 15th, 2022. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I motion that Kingstown Subdivision, H-2022-0045, has a continuance for September 15th. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded -- Yearsley: Second. Sorry. Seal: That's okay, Steve. Been moved and seconded that Kingstown Subdivision, H- 2022-0045, be continued to the date of September 15th, 2022. All in favor say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Chipotle Drive-Through (H-2022-0055) by Matthew Bush, WP5 Meridian II, LLC., Located at 3004 N. Eagle Rd., near the southeast corner of Eagle and Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximately 2,325 square foot Chipotle restaurant with a drive-through to replace an existing and vacant restaurant located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. Seal: Can I get a motion for Chipotle Drive-Through, H-2022-0055, recognizing their intent to withdraw? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 5 of 53 Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I motion that H-2022-0055 for Chipotle to withdraw. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recognize the applicant's withdraw for File No. H-2022-0055, Chipotle Drive-Through. All in favor say aye. No opposed, motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) by Alpha Development Group, Located at S0427438410 on the north side of W. McMillan Rd. between N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way, near the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district Seal: Okay. Now, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2022- 0047 for Bridgetower Multi-family and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Sorry, Chair. We are trying to get the presentation pulled up here. One moment, please. Seal: That's okay. Thank you much. Bill, if you would like me to play the role of IT, I can simply ask you if you rebooted. There we go. There we go. Parsons: It's going to be one of those nights I believe. Seal: Absolutely. That's all right. Parsons: I want to thank everyone in the audience for their patience this evening. We will try to get down to business sometime tonight, so appreciate everyone being here as well. We don't usually have a crowd that's this large, so it's always -- the devils are in the details; right? So, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, happy to be here this evening. I am presenting on behalf of Joe Dodson, who was the associate planner who worked on this project. He is lucky enough to be on vacation tonight and so I have -- I have graciously accepted the task of presenting this project to you this evening. So, the one and only item on the agenda tonight is the Bridgetower Multi-family conditional use permit. The subject property is currently zoned R-15 in the city. It consists of 16.6 acres of land and it's located near the northwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile Road. This property has quite a bit of history on it. I have been with the city for over 15 years. I initially started with this project back in 2008 and that's where I met with the previous developer. He had a different vision for the property. At the time that he came through he processed a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 6 of 53 Comprehensive Plan map amendment for this property in which he changed this whole entire area to what is -- what we call mixed-use community. Under that mixed-use designations we envision three distinct land uses, including a mix of residential, commercial and office uses on the subject property, potentially even industrial. If you recall in 2020 the previous developer tried to come forward with a plan, tried to rezone some of this property and convert some of that commercial back to residential, because they thought there wasn't a market for it and you guys heard that application. You, essentially, recommended denial of that application and he heard you loud and clear and decided to withdraw the application before it moved on to City Council. He felt that he could make that zoning work. He since has now sold this property to the new developer, in which they purchased the property -- they bought the property with a current development agreement that currently is on this property and recently they took a DA modification before City Council. Their concept plan was different than the one we are talking about this evening. Ultimately Council made a determination that it wasn't consistent and they recommended denial of that development agreement modification. So, the applicant contacted staff after that hearing and asked -- we went through the DA with our city attorney's office. They asked --we have R-15 zoned property, we -- we went back to the drawing board, redesigned the site to be more consistent with the concept plan of the development agreement, could we proceed with our conditional use permit. Once they finalized their plan they shared that with us. We worked with them and we determined that it was in substantial compliance with that development agreement and, therefore, we are here tonight presenting this site plan to you based on the premise that this plan before you is consistent with that development agreement. So, here is the proposed site plan that's before you. I mentioned to you that the site consists -- or the applicant is asking for conditional use permit approval to develop 235 multi-family units on the subject property. In total there is 14 buildings on the site. Majority of them are two-story along the perimeter and, then, the one three story building is this large building near the intersection of McMillan and Vicenza Way. That was, again, as I mentioned to you, this layout is similar to what is currently in the recorded development agreement. Product -- or the number of unit mix for the development will consist of 26 studios, 131 bedroom -- single bedrooms, 52 two-bedroom units and 26 three-bedroom units. Access to this proposed development -- you can see here one access is proposed on the west boundary and, then, two access points are along East Vicenza Way. I would also mention to the Commission that all of the roadways adjacent to this property are currently constructed and there is currently no local street access to this property. So, the two roads on the west and east boundary are currently designated collector streets and as you know McMillan Road is an arterial roadway. Typically our codes do require access to be taken from the lesser classified roadway. In this particular case those other two collector roadways on either side of the development. The other interesting note for the Commission on this particular project is both -- all of the street frontage improvements are done for this project as well. So, there is street buffers on the west side, the east side and also the McMillan Road side. That will be incorporated into part of this development. One of the -- one of the criteria for approving open space for multi-family developments is requiring the Commission to allow open space to be adjacent to arterial and collector roadways. So, that's part of your purview tonight whether or not you feel that's appropriate based on the open space that they are showing this evening. I mentioned to you that in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 7 of 53 the staff report staff was recommending that you do that. But, again, that's something under your purview tonight as we go through -- as I continue through my presentation. All of the access is being proposed by internal drive aisles. That's typical with multi-family. This is one -- one parcel. So, all of these interconnected driveways are providing access to all those residential units. The fire department has commented on that and the applicant is meeting those requirements as well. I would also mention to you in the staff report you can see the two graphics on the right here. Staff did recommend some revisions to the site plan that you are -- that you are seeing this evening. One is adding an additional -- although we try to limit access, there is also an opportunity to get better access or have consolidated accesses with properties. So, the adjacent property north of this particular property is zoned commercial and this piece is R-15 and we have an elementary school just to the northwest of this development and in our discussions with the applicant during the pre-application meetings, not only for the CUP, but also for the DA modification that we went -- they went through, we wanted to make sure that this intersection aligned to help facilitate parents taking kids to school or kids getting to school. In addition to that, we feel -- typically we want -- the mixed-use developments we want uses to be integrated and because this is an opportunity to do that, this is one way to provide cross-access for the commercial development and provide the pedestrian connectivity that the mixed-use policies call for in the plan. So, that's one of the specific changes we have requested, that they work with the property owner to the north to make that happen. The second has to do with the parking central to the development here. As you -- you -- you may hear tonight, typically when you have a road that goes through a development there is a potential for cut-through traffic and when you have back out parking and the -- the -- you create conflicts that may not necessarily work and so staff has made some recommendations in the staff report to eliminate that parking or at least try to add some kind of traffic calming or design it differently in order for that -- that to function a little bit better for the site. I haven't confirmed with the applicant which option they have got -- want to go with, but I can tell you we have asked for some -- some bulb outs here at the two intersections of these driveways or actually rotate these buildings 90, so that the driveways -- actually these two center buildings front across from the adjacent buildings to minimize those back-out parking onto that drive aisle. As I'm -- I'm sure the applicant is going to address that with you in their presentation this evening. The other part of the change that we requested was -- as you can see here the -- the parking area for the larger three story structure -- there is two curb cuts of that driveway. Although code doesn't address that, we feel as -- as best planning practices it's better to align driveways, so we are hoping they will eliminate one of those exit points and shift that over and have it align like you would on a public street -- having those accesses align to minimize conflicts on the site. The applicant -- here is the open space exhibit that the applicant proposed. Again, a lot of our discussion with the applicant on this particular property had to do with density and open space. We were very adamant with them that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates densities between six and 15 dwell -- dwelling units to the acre. The applicant was sensitive to that, knowing that the neighbors may not be supportive of higher density on this particular project, so they -- they made a conscious effort not only to minimize the height of the units, the two-story along the perimeter, but also keep that density under that 15 units to the acre. So, the project before you tonight is roughly 14 dwelling units to the acre, which I think it bodes well, it's consistent with that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 8 of 53 mixed-use community designation. As part of that they wanted to make sure to address some of the neighborhood concerns regarding open space and amenities. A lot of times when these developments go in adjacent to single family homes neighbors are always concerned about residents using their open space or their amenities as part of their subdivision. This applicant -- the plan that's shown before you shows approximately six acres of open space, which is a tremendous amount of open space for a multi-family development. Exceeds code requirements. You can see here on the amenity table that I have attached before you they have amenities in excess of code requirements as well. There is 13 amenities proposed for this development. Again, I will -- I won't take all of the applicant's thunder this evening. I will let them try to sell you a little bit more on their project, but at least I want to highlight some of the distinction of this project for you and what -- we are getting more than what code requires. The other issue that comes up quite a bit with multi-family developments is the parking and if you had a chance to look at the staff report the applicant's actually providing more parking than is required by code. Fifty-nine extra spaces to be exact. And, lastly, I wanted to just get to the elevations. Again, the applicant has submitted a concurrent design review application. Typically you guys are not the body to act on design review. Staff -- as -- if you see here in the lower corner here staff has technically approved -- the director's approved the design review application with a couple tweaks or modifications if you will. I know the applicant can continue to work with staff through that as part of their CZC submittal if they are successful in getting through the hearing with an approval, but it's really nothing part of your purview this evening. I think we can work those things out. Again, if -- if you guys concur and they get an approval from the city to move forward. Primarily staff wants to make sure that it blends in with the surrounding neighborhood and there is a mix of colors and materials on buildings. That's really the intent behind the design manual. And that's why we brought these three changes to the applicant's attention. Again, the -- the design manual also allows a designer to go through what we call a design standards exception if they want to do something equal to or better than code and they have that ability to do that with staff. If the Commission had a chance -- I will go -- go ahead and close out my comments and just let you know if you have had a chance to look at the public record and judging by the audience in the -- in the room this evening you can see that we have received quite a bit of testimony -- written testimony on this -- this project. And looking at that testimony there seems to be some common themes. One has to do with increased traffic on McMillan, which I know this body is very aware of with all the development occurring in the area. Two is neighbors' perception of increased crime and lowering property values with the proposed development. As we have discussed numerous occasions school capacities are a concern. And, then, also the neighbors had concerns with the aesthetics of the apartments not blending in with the adjacent neighborhood. And as I just mentioned to you, we are trying to get that to fit a little bit better with our design review process. With that I will just close and say that staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I have had a chance to talk with the applicant before the -- the -- before tonight's hearing and they are in agreement with staff's recommended conditions as well. So, with that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 9 of 53 Seal: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill. Appreciate that. Would the applicant like come forward at this time? Good evening, sir. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Holt: Absolutely. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Dustin Holt. Alpha Development Group. 166 East 14000 South, Draper, Utah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you very much for your -- your time this evening. Alpha Development is a joint venture with Wadsworth Development Group and Ball Ventures. With me tonight is another principal and partner at Alpha Development Bryce Baker, as well as Tahri Molifua of Ball Ventures. Our outside counsel Jeff Wardle. Kelly Morgan of Method Studios, the architect for the project, and Brad Watson from our office. I want to publicly thank Mr. Dodson, who isn't here, but Mr. Parsons as well, as well as Mr. -- Mr. Nary. We have spent a great deal of time with your staff the last year and a half and -- and appreciate the approach that they take and I believe that they are looking out on the city -- looking out for the city's best interest. Alpha -- let's see. I'm kind of technologically inept, so -- am I driving the mouse? Oh, that -- that's why. It wasn't moving. So, slide two. Alpha Development and its partners have been involved in multiple product types, everything from industrial, hospitality, retail, multi- family, office and we have been involved -- Bill, you can click -- click through and we have been involved and/or our partners have been involved in projects here in Meridian city itself and/or in the greater Treasure Valley and we appreciate the opportunity to -- to yet, again, be involved in a project here. Click through a couple slides there. So, before we get to the really pretty pictures and -- and all of the fun stuff -- and I think Bill did a -- a wonderful job at it recounting some of the history, but -- but going back to show where we have been, to show how we ended up where we are today, I think does merit a little bit of time. So, this is -- this is a land use history starting in 2006 specific to this property to where we are today. Bill, if you want to go to the -- the next one for us. So, in 2006 this property was originally annexed in conjunction with a 312 acre annexation. At that time a development agreement was signed and various portions of the 312 acres were given various zoning designations. Then in 2008 the Comprehensive Plan for the city was actually updated to reflect more of those zoning designations and some of those uses. The 16 acre parcel that we are here to discuss tonight at that point in time, as -- as Bill mentioned, was given a mixed-use community comp plan designation between single family to the west and commercial to the right. So, at that time planners and -- and staff noted that a more intense density would be necessary or intensity would be to the -- to the east and a less intense use would be located to -- to the west. Then in 2010 the development agreement was actually modified. Ninety-three of those previous 312 acres were included in an overall concept plan that Bill referenced. Again, those zoning designations, as well as those comp plan designations, were reaffirmed in that development agreement amendment and this overall concept plan for 93 acres was -- was created. At that point in time the previous developer had actually pursued or had hopes of pursuing a large hospital facility. That ultimately picked a different location and so the 93 acres has commercial, the hospital facility, MOB, multi-family, senior, assisted and in a variety of uses. But, again, this 16 acre piece was zoned R-15 and received the mixed community designation. I want to make one note to Bill's comment about the -- the other developer who we bought from. His application -- I hope you will recall was actually north of this. It was not part of the 16 acres where he was previously presenting changing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 10 of 53 the commercial to single family homes and we still have contact with the property owner to the north and are confident as we get to some of the latter part that we can work out the -- that joint access onto Gondola. I forgot my water. So, then, in -- in 2019 after the hospital and that medical facility ultimately moved somewhere else, you can see some of the language at the top of this page. Various items -- there was, again, an amendment to the development agreement. It actually consolidated four development agreements into one development agreement and several items were removed and a couple of key provisions were actually incorporated into that development. So, a couple of the things that were removed were the -- were the points related to healthcare, the -- the hotel, the MOB -- those items were struck and what was put in its place was a reaffirmation of those zones and, then, language that -- at the time that a development would come forth. That development would have to adhere to the then zoning and the comp plan for that property and that's really what brings us to -- to where we are today, but -- but more than ten years ago this process started of more intensity on the corner, less intensity to the -- to the west of us and that's what we have been working through. We acquired this property a little more than a year ago. Got involved in this property about 18 months ago. Initially we did not love the concept plan, so we came and met with staff. We explained what our intent or vision was. We met with some of the neighbors. We put a concept plan together. That concept plan, while I haven't put it in here, I'm -- I'm happy to -- to share it with you or -- or show it to you, but it consisted of 32 structures. Many of those were four and five-plex townhomes structures. They were three story urban townhome structures. And, then, we did have three larger buildings. When we came --or went before the --the City Council and showed them this 32 structure plan, they ultimately said they did not believe that it was -- complied or was close enough to the original concept plan. So, as Bill mentioned, they -- they denied that application in February of this year and since then we have met with Bill and Mr. Nary and Joe and we have talked through the concept plan, which is on your left, from the 2000 -- really the 2009 development agreement that was, then, included in 2019 and a couple of the key points that staff told us to focus on. Thirteen multiplex buildings, a town -- a clubhouse that's more centric to the building and, then, a larger building out on -- out on McMillan. What we did is go through a -- I'm going to call it a constructability or a real world assessment of that. We met with fire. As you can see, many of the drive aisles onto those adjacent streets, San Vito and Vicenza, they don't line up with the subdivisions or the commercial that exists. So, we looked at real-world constructability of those. We aligned those intersections. As Bill mentioned, we met with fire. We looked at hammerheads, turnarounds, radius circulation and what we could do to that previous concept plan to make it buildable. After we worked through that -- and when I say that, I'm talking just on the horizontal plane -- and got confirmation that this concept plan would comply with the concept plan from the previous development agreement. We, then, set out onto the vertical nature and -- and the fun stuff, the -- the buildings and trying to answer neighbors' concerns. So, we have had at least four meetings with -- with the neighbors. I know that we have not answered all of their concerns. I do think that we have answered some of their concerns and I think that some of those concerns that we have been able to address I think are pretty significant concerns and some of them Bill's, as he mentioned, already stole our -- our thunder and -- and shared those with you. But I -- I -- I think it's worth just going through them. So, if you will go down to the -- the next -- you can actually skip the next slide. It just shows three Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 11 of 53 or four of those meetings that we had and the timelines. So, this stack flat building is the southernmost building. It's the T-shaped building. Originally when we presented this to the neighborhood this was a four story structure and in conversations with them they expressed concerns about that. So, we have removed an entire floor from this building and we have -- we have removed it to a three story structure. Additionally, Bill, as you go down our -- our mansion home, our -- our multiplex building, again, we had three story urban townhomes that we looked at. We heard that the urban feel of those townhomes wasn't Meridian, wasn't neighborhood, and so this modern farm home design and architectural aesthetic is what we, then, fixated on. We lowered this to a two-story home with steeper roof pitches to more closely replicate or-- or mimic a -- a single family home. Some of those 4/12 and -- and 6/12 plus roof -- roof pitches. But -- but dropping it to a two-story building from a three story product, again, is -- I think it's something worth -- worth noting. Mr. -- Mr. Dodson in his staff report I think did a wonderful job. He enumerated how this plan complies with and/or exceeds the -- both the zoning ordinance, as well as the comp plan and the ordinances outlined in both of those. Even at 14 units to the acre we are still providing more than double the required open space. We -- we had neighbors that expressed grave concern because of Bridgetower as a master planned community. Some of the pools, some of the parks, some of the trails, some of the ball courts and facilities that are in -- in nearby adjacency, there was concern that our residents would end up on their facilities and so we have tried to go to great extent, as -- as Bill mentioned, in providing the qualified open space that is nearly double what's required and additionally providing 13 of those site -- site development amenities. So, we have a dog park, a basketball court, a pool, a hot tub, a fitness facility, pickleball courts, basketball -- or BBQ stations, hammock garden, cabanas, clubhouse, business lounge. The fitness course around the outside is actually very intentionally planned so that a certain number of loops is a certain number of miles. The hardcourt -- or hardscape picnic areas, the bike storage, the bike repair and, then, the EV charging station. So, we think we have gone to -- to a great extent to provide our residents with the amenities, so once they are -- once they are home they can stay there, they can recreate and they can enjoy their time with their -- with their friends and families. As mentioned, we are providing 59 extra parking stalls. That's in direct response to the neighbors. There is -- there was concern that parking would overflow into the neighborhood and so a couple of things to note are that we are providing that -- more than ten percent in excess of what's required by code and we are also proposing that we would continue the no parking signs or leave the no parking signs on San Vito and Vicenza both, so that no residents would park there and, then, we are trying to provide, you know, 59 extra parking stalls for the residents of our community in and of itself. As found in the staff report, the -- the project conforms with the underlying zoning, the concept plan and the development agreement and the land use designation. A traffic report was provided to ACHD. ACHD reviewed that traffic report and accepted that traffic report. They are going to require some mitigations and we understand those mitigations and we are ready to comply with those mitigations as part of this process and -- and prior to receiving certificate of occupancy. We have mentioned -- or Bill's mentioned some of those other items from the staff report. I will -- I will -- I will note a couple of those. The access road to the north -- we continue to have a great relationship with that property owner to the north along Gondola and previously he would work with us in carving a piece of-- of his property off to be able to get that access. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 12 of 53 We are still confident we can get that access. We are looking at bulb -- bulb outs and raised walkways along that main -- main driveway, which was one of staff's alternate recommendations. And, then, we are comfortable with realigning the entrance and minimizing the entrance into that surface parking lot and -- and any of the other items that Bill mentioned we are confident in -- in our relationship with staff that we will be able to finalize those through the -- the CZC process. Time? Did I hear some -- forty seconds. Okay. Perfect. I did well. We are -- we are really excited about this. We are excited about the investment into the community. I know that you will hear from residents who have concerns. We share many of the same concerns. We have spent a great deal of time understanding ITD and ACHD's road improvements along Chinden. The highway extension of 16. The intersections along McMillan. We -- we have understood those improvements that will be taking place over the next three and four years and as you -- as you think about this project I just want you to think about -- everyone believes or anticipates that this is happening tomorrow and that it's all going to get built at once. Assuming the approval occurs, we have got the better part of six months to 12 months to work through final construction drawings and building permits and, then, our general contractor is telling us this is a 26 to 30 month construction buildout. During that 26 to 30 months units would come on in various phases. But we are talking about something in excess of three years when -- when many of the school district improvements, as well as the traffic improvements will be made. So, we very much appreciate your time. Appreciate you -- your attention on this matter and respectfully request your approval of our CUP this evening. I'm here for any questions. Let me know. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Dustin. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Seeing none -- Holt: And will we have a chance to respond to -- Seal: Absolutely. Holt: Thank you very much. Seal: Yep. You are very welcome. Madam Clerk, we probably don't have anybody signed in to testify do we? Hall- Let me check. Online we had a Mr. Bill Clark signed up to testify and I believe he is in Chambers. Seal: Good evening, sir. If you can give us your name and address for the record. Clark: My name is Bill Clark. I live at 3670 West Balducci. We live directly across the street from the proposed development, immediately to the south side of -- of McMillan. You know, I have -- I have been to most of the video discussions with the developer. have also read a great number of the documents submitted by the agencies and I -- I wrote my written comments -- my wife and I are not opposed to growth. However, we feel that the growth that must occur must benefit the entire community and the positive Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 13 of 53 aspects have to outweigh the negative aspects and it's our belief that that is not the case with this current project. I'm a retired chief operating officer and part of my job was to make sure when people came to sell me stuff that the statistics matched the benefits for the potential outlay and so as a result of that we talked a lot about traffic on Monday and on Tuesday I went out and took a lawn chair and a pad and a pencil and I just did a traffic count at the intersection of McMillan and San Vito. I did it from 3:00 or -- yeah. 3:00 to 4:10 on Monday and from 2:50 to 4:10 on Tuesday. So, I would have two data points. So, you -- you would think I wasn't biasing my data. According to the engineers hired by the consultants -- or by the developers, the peak travel hours are actually 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. So, my -- my sample is prior to that. Yes. Here is my data. Now, you will see on this outside column over here the averages of those two days and there were an average of 1,049 vehicles traveled that intersection during that period. Out of that 467 of them traveled east, 550 of them were traveling west, and there is a higher percentage going west because you guys have already approved a number of developments further down towards Black Cat and so that development is going to continue to expand and there would be more and more traffic going in that direction. According to an ACHD document dated August 5th they had peak traffic count on McMillan at 335 vehicles. That's opposed to the 1,049 that I counted. Vicenza Way there was no data and I wasn't sitting down there, so I can't -- I can't provide anything there. And on San Vito Way they had 59 vehicles as a peak traffic count and my count was 301 with 224 of those going north and 77 of them going south. A thousand forty-nine vehicles is 14 vehicles per minute and that averages out to a vehicle every 4.28 seconds. That makes it very difficult for pedestrians to cross that street and there were a lot of parents with school children trying to cross that street to get back -- I will be quick, please. Cars turning left onto San Vito got piled up in the turn lane and one vehicle ran through the stop lights, but the bus -- but the bus driver was very astute and I understand that can happen anyplace. But there are several numbers that don't match up in the traffic studies and I went out and got the engineering study that the developers used to quote you guys the traffic numbers that would occur as a result of this development. They said there would be 1,788 daily trips generated by this development. I will accept that. I don't know where that comes from, but they said there would be 123 cars at the peak morning time, which was 7:00 to 9:00 and that there would be 148 at the peak evening hours. I went out and acquired the engineering document they used as a reference and what they seem to have quoted was the light industrial entrance and exit numbers. If you look at mid rise multi-family housing, which I believe this is more in line with, those -- those numbers are understated by about 238 percent. They are actually 293 versus 123 and 300 versus 148. So, my point is not to bury you in statistics. You can show the next slide if you would. The -- the fact of the matter is where ever these cars exit -- I show you this diagram not to try to explain it to you, but just to show you what a mess this intersection is, because it's chaos at -- at that time of day. Seal: So you will need to wrap it up real quick. Clark: I will be real quick. Seal: No. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 14 of 53 Clark: Nevertheless, my summary -- I don't believe you can evaluate this project in isolation from the surroundings in the existing community. That's one. Two. It will adversely impact the existing neighborhoods traffic flows, quality of life, public services, public schools and these are all for people who have already invested in this community and I think that's important. It's been presented on a couple different fronts as affordable housing and to the residents as high end developments. So, there would be a higher class of people moving in there. I would ask if the Planning Commission feels that more housing needs to be developed in that area that it get rezoned to a low density residential classification. There is also commercial applications and some other things, but-- I guess my only other comment was -- this is a 16.6 acre parcel with 6.7 acres of open space, which means you are putting 235 units in 9.8 acres, which appears to me to be like R-23 and I don't think vertical density is any less important than horizontal density. So, thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk? Hall: John Wycoff. Seal: Please do not do that. Thank you. Please keep it orderly. Hall: Is there a John Wycoff? Seal: Good evening, sir. Please give us your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Wycoff: 5099 North Bolsena in Meridian. I think based on what they were presenting here I want to move into that facility, because, man, it's got everything that anybody would ever want. But it's really doing a lot for me as a resident of my area. I got to speak on a number of things. Going down McMillan there have been a number of occasions that even I, growing up in Orange County, LA, have almost been hit and T-boned in the back trying to pull into San Vito from McMillan. Crossing over, going from one side of San Vito to the other side of San Vito, I'm waiting for that day during a snowfall that somebody is just going to get -- that -- that you are going to have a major accident. Over at Gondola and Black Cat, all the crowds of kids trying to come across to go to the school over there and blank on it. There is going to be some problems just with the density of the -- what's being presented here, too. You have some problems in that. Bigger concern that I have is just the HOA. Since we have -- I have moved in there things that have happened with the HOA, from the watering never getting done, to pool use, it's already become overcrowded within that area and now the HOA owner -- or the owner-developer who is now controlling the HOA -- one person having control of just one lot that he is not selling off is affecting us as the residents of the HOA. Bridgetower West is controlling everything about our property. He has already said -- Mr. Developer here -- that he has a good working relationship with him, because he also owns the property on the north side of Walmart. To be able to -- at anytime, really, be able to control the sale of any portion of our property to the property developer above on the north side of Walmart. So, I guess to make it short it's really becoming irritating. When I purchased the property I was under Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 15 of 53 the impression that it was going to be a good development. Now we are getting squeezed on everything. Property from the HOA could potentially be sold to any one of the areas, because he still gets to dictate what the HOA can and can't do, so -- and since I am owning a property that is paying my property taxes to Meridian, that in 2016 was nominated as one -- is the best place -- city in the United States, it's becoming a big concern for me, because I bought in that -- in this area because of that, so that's really where I'm going to leave it to. I mean give it -- give time to somebody else to speak, but -- that's all. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk? Hall: Debbie Wycoff. No? Okay. Patricia Fritschle. Seal: Good evening, ma'am. Your name and address for the record. Fritschle: Patricia Fritschle. Patricia Fritschle. 5524 North Botticelli Avenue, Meridian. Bridgetower West. I oppose the development. Not just because of the density, but as a whole with McMillan not being expanded on streetwise, you are developing James Ranch, Rapid Creek, Oak Creek, Prescott, all of which is just a few of the current developments that's going on around our neighborhood that are going to add hundreds of homes, which is going to increase even more the traffic that's already backlogged on Black Cat, McMillan, Ten Mile and I just don't see adding something like this to our neighborhood beneficial. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Hall: Janice Borchard. Seal: Good evening, ma'am. Name and address for the record. Borchard: Janice Borchard. 5466 North Botticelli, Meridian, number one, I wanted to say I have been pretty much with all the meetings and Dustin and Brad have been really good about -- my big concern was -- I know we are going to have apartments there, so I want them to be the most aesthetically pleasing to our community and I think they have done a really good job with the modern farmhouse, because I went around all over town and took pictures of what I thought would be acceptable in our community, because we do have a nice -- Bridgetower West is a nice -- really nice, you know, subdivision and I didn't want that urban look. So, kudos to them for working, you know, with us on doing that. Really happy. Dustin mentioned one concern that my husband and I have is he said that the -- the no parking signs are going to stay on San Vito and I just would really like reassurance that that's going to happen, because I can see overflow parking, you know, like an RV or whatever for this community, because they don't have that capability of perhaps, you know, parking a boat or whatever in their community, having it be on San Vito and right now that is our, you know, grand entrance and so that's number one. And number two is what other folks have brought up is there seems to be a real lack of infrastructure going in in this town before these developments get started. I drive Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 16 of 53 McMillan, you know, a lot and there are no turnouts for people, so traffic is stopped all up and down -- like down to Cloverdale, you know, we just -- we need to really improve some of the traffic flow that we have in this community. I know there is a roundabout going in, but, again, you know, it's kind of like, you know, it's -- it's too late, you know, by the time that goes in in a few years. So, with that being said, you know, that's a concern. So, thank you for listening to me. Seal: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to have constructive input back to the builder. Appreciate that. Hall: Ross Anderson. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address for the record. Anderson: Ross Anderson. 4510 West Twisted Creek Drive. So, I think that the optics that the developer are painting are perhaps not the best; right? It's -- it's for their benefit. There is a monetary value to that. All of those things that people are in business for to make money and I appreciate and respect that. However, as a -- as a citizen resident and, you know, living in Bridgetower West, you know, we paid a premium for the home in the general area to, you know, have an upper middle class neighborhood. In addition to that, you know, we looked at this area specifically for the schools; right? We could have moved anywhere that we wanted to and so we drew circles around areas and said, look, you know, Owyhee is right here and there is other schools around there as well, but they are already over capacity; right? So, I would just like to cite a couple of things from some of the previous rulings, a letter from West Ada and, then, just some first-hand knowledge of what I have witnessed and -- and hopefully that will give you guys a little bit different perspective here. So, in January 22nd of 2020 there was a townhouse -- townhouse that was planned to be constructed and was denied by the Meridian City Council. That was at McMillan and Ten Mile and that was on a five acre parcel of land. At the time the Council President Treg Bernt said: I like what I see in the development sometimes, it's just not the right time. Sometimes it's just not the right place. In addition to that, Council Woman Liz Strader said that there are macro level issues, including a traffic nightmare on McMillan, and school overcrowding that would be intensified by a higher density housing development like Goddard Creek. I don't think this neighborhood, especially this area on McMillan, can support any density beyond the R-4 she said. Ultimately at that time the Council Members unanimously voted five to zero to deny that application. So, the question I have is two years ago if a five acre parcel and some townhomes was denied based on traffic, what's the delta in the difference between now when you are adding 234 units two years later with an already over congested area with more area that's been built up? We don't think that that's going to go down. It certainly has -- has increased as well. The West Ada School District with Marci Horner, the planning and development administrator, on August 26 sent a note over to everybody here and the Cliff Notes of this basically says that the capacity is already full. The projection for students with the approved development in Pleasant View Elementary, which is around the corner from our home, will have an enrollment capacity of 650, but the projected stats are going to be 787. That's over capacity. Star Middle School, the CAP is a thousand, but it's going to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 17 of 53 be projected at 1,033. That's just with this development, not even counting the others on Black Cat, you know, and -- and around and, you know, I think the -- the summary of all of this, if I may just have another moment, you know, as a parent safety is really paramount to everybody; right? Our children are our most precious resource and as we look at safety, traffic congestions, you know, Gondola is already a madhouse and you have a big problem with the way that the road is where it's going east to west. So, people that are dropping off children in the morning are going to be blinded by the sunrise. People that are dropping off -- or picking up kids in the evening are going to be blinded by the sunset and it would be a shame if the -- you know, influx of cars causes an injury to a child because, you know, of -- of the factors that I'm stating. In addition to that, you know, we are talking about the education of our children and schools that are already over capacity -- and you are talking about building other portables and bringing all these other, you know, units onto the school campus. Well, those are all subsidized through us, right, as taxpayers. In addition to that, you know, teacher salaries, the buildings, everything else, but the real people that suffer as a result of overcrowding in schools, they are not the taxpayers, there are most precious resource. They are children and we are robbing them from a potential future by inundating more and more people to the particular area and I just think that with all the land in Meridian and surrounding areas that there is other ample sites for this with infrastructure that supports it, both schools, roads, and other and I think that we should highly consider altering course on this and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Hall: Michelle Anderson. Okay. Thank you. Beverly Hartle. Seal: Good evening, ma'am. Name and address for the record, please. Hartle: Which one? Seal: Either one works. Hartle: Hi. Beverly Hartle. 4881 North Bolsena. I am here for we the people of Bridgetower West Subdivision. 1, too, have a history here in Meridian. I was born and raised in Southern California and I have lived in Meridian, Idaho, for the last 28 years and virtually I have lived in the four square miles for that 28 years from Ustick to Cherry Lane, Linder, up Ten Mile. So, I have seen the significant changes in Meridian. It was about -- under 10,000 people when I moved here and now I just looked up the statistics of Meridian population and we are at 126,000. Yes, we have expanded. Eagle -- it was a two lane road when I moved here. Ten Mile was I believe just a two mile -- two lane up to just a few years ago and I still own property just a mile to the west in Kelly Creek and I built our home three -- let's see -- four years ago in 2018. Little did I know that I would be moving to an area that we would be having apartments being built right near my property and I am completely against that and we take such pride in ownership and value in our property and it shows and I don't agree with the connecting aspect to having apartments access San Vito or Gondola. Like what is the purpose to access that? If you have an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 18 of 53 access into that road right behind Walmart there is no reason there should be an access to that. So, additionally, the traffic is a major concern, because I wait lengthy periods of time trying to get out of my neighborhood. In addition to that, we have -- we had that mentioned before, the neighborhoods that have already been approved over on Black Cat and in addition I wonder if we have taken into consideration the Interstate 16 that's going to have the connected roadway for everybody traveling down McMillan to access that Interstate 16 that is just two miles away from our housing development. Once that occurs -- I mean that's in the planning stage right now. That's happening right now. It's in construction and two miles from us everybody's going to be coming onto McMillan that was never before, because they are going to be accessing that Interstate that goes all the way to I-15. So, that is a major concern and the irrigation canals -- just one more thing -- is there is no plan to expand McMillan for another ten years because of the irrigation pipes that go all the way east and west along McMillan. So, what type of infrastructure are we going to do already before adding these apartment complexes to right behind our neighborhood? So, that is a major concern of safety, infrastructure and the amount of traffic and I -- I -- I'm a former Mrs. Idaho. I'm a former Mrs. Meridian. I'm a former Mrs. Ada County and I take pride and/or ownership in my property, in my city, in my state and Utah -- I know Utah -- I know the roads, the infrastructure is a big difference compared to Idaho and compared to where we live right now and it's not okay. It's -- it's not where we want to be in our area of Idaho. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, ma'am. Hall: Sean Freeman. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address for the record, please. Freeman: Sean Freeman. 177 West Peach Springs. I would ask the Commission to, please, not approve this application. Do not approve it. As stated before, they can't support the infrastructure and the staff report -- you do note in your staff report that McMillan is already well documented to be impacted. However, you also know in your staff report that you believe that this project is harmonious with what should happen. I disagree. I do not think this application should go forward. Also I would also note that you have the chance now in 2008 they made this R-15. You guys should look at whatever else is R-15 and R-15 and approved should never come out of your mouths. It should never be approved anything that's R-15. Simply as that. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Hall- Anne Frankel. Anne Frankel? Okay. We will go on to Jim Mangum. Or Mangrum. Okay. Jeff Wertz. Gabriel Astorga. Yes, please. Seal: Good evening, sir. Need your name and address for the record, please. Astorga: My name is Gabriel Astorga. I'm at 4543 West Twisted Creek and I'm standing before the Council this morning to request that the motion be denied. We have already Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 19 of 53 addressed the traffic concerns and the lack of infrastructure to support this development, so I won't get into that, but also just want to note on record that there is already two high density housing units within less than one and a half miles in proximity to the proposed location. Having grown up in Southern California in the San Fernando Valley in particular, I saw the rise and increase in apartment dwellings and the issue with that is that it draws a transient population where we have residents that are part of the community, but don't have stake in the community. They are able to break leases or just to go ahead and relocate to different areas where the rest of us have chose to homestead here in Idaho. So, I'm going to just ask the Commission to consider rezoning the project -- or to rezone it for low density housing or -- or commercial use. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Parsons: Mr. Chair,just--just to elaborate on some of the comments I have been hearing tonight. Not trying to interrupt the public testimony, but just want to make it clear with the residents that the city doesn't rezone property or the Commission doesn't rezone property without having a rezone application in front of you. So, essentially, the way it works is the rezone application happens if someone comes and proposes to rezone a property. So, the Commission just can't arbitrarily rezone something to a low density designation. The property's zoning, that's -- that's an entitlement that runs with the land. The only way the zoning could change is if the applicant proposes to change the zoning. So, I just want to make that clear on the record that that's -- that's not even part of the discussion tonight. Seal: Okay. Thank you, sir. Hall- Bob Thomas. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Thomas: Bob Thomas. 4455 West Twisted Creek. Thank you for taking the public testimony. That's important. And just my qualification. I am a police and fire chaplain. I have been for the last seven years. I'm from north Idaho. I have actually spent about 10,000 hours in a patrol car responding to fire or police emergencies. One of the statistics that most people don't know is that when you get into high density housing, such as apartments, again, in north Idaho when we moved there 24 years ago I think we had about 8,800 people in our town, which is now somewhere in the neighborhood of like 50,000 and Kootenai county is coming up on 400,000. But the population explosion destroyed it and what happened was developers came in and they said how can we stack more people into the same small area and when they started to do that what it did was it --they-- you know, they started building apartments and high density housing. Well, calls for service in high density housing are anywhere from six to ten times what they are in a single family residence area. When I say that I mean police coming to crime scenes, coming to drug overdoses, coming to lots of domestic abuse and fire coming for medical emergencies, et cetera. When you put too many people in too small of a cage let's call it, then, you have more problems. School resource officers -- some of my best friends are school resource officers and when you talk to them about, you know, problems that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 20 of 53 they have, many of them -- most of them are coming from -- and I hate to say it, but lower income or higher density. It just -- it just kind of works that way. When you start shoving so many people into a one bedroom or a two-bedroom apartment, it's just -- those are the -- the statistics. As it stands right now school -- this Pleasant View Elementary, it's at capacity. What do you think is going to happen when -- because we now bring in an apartment complex with another 200 and some odd people in it, some of the people who moved to Bridgetower are now being told -- and it was in the comments I think from Marci -- that one of the solutions is to bus people, kids, to other schools. So, people move into a neighborhood that has been built up by the developer to become a nicer -- a nicer community. It has --values have gone up and up and up. People have paid over a million dollars for homes in that area and now they are told, hey, I know you shopped, I know that you worked, I know that you earned, I know that you sacrificed to get where you are at and your kids, well, I'm sorry, I know they were supposed to go to this school. We are going to bus them down the road. That is just going to create legal problems. It's going to create more animosity. I have seen first-hand from north Idaho -- one of the reasons we moved was the population explosion destroyed the community and we don't want to be a part of that. The last thing I wanted to just say is, obviously, the subdivision that we are in right now -- it was very well planned. This is truly Hometown USA. Kids playing in the street. Kid -- neighbors talking with each other. Our Fourth of July was the largest I have ever seen. We are going to take away from that for one reason -- the only true benefactors in this are not the community, but an out-of-state developer who has no stake in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thanks, sir. Hall- Matt Garrison. Seal: Good evening, sir. Name and address for the record. Garrison: Yeah. Matt Garrison. 3898 West Lesina Drive, Meridian. I live on the south side of McMillan. I have come from an experience of -- I have lived in my adult life in lots of areas that have been extremely overdeveloped. LA. Orange County. Tampa. Houston. Dallas. Portland. In the last 30 years and I have seen developers come in and just flood the areas with massive amounts of overdevelopment, where ten and 15 minute commute turned into 45 minute commutes or an hour and it really really erodes the quality of life in so many ways. Just -- nobody wants to spend that much time in a car waiting for traffic lights. If you sit out there on San Vito right now and McMillan it -- really at any given time of day it's already -- as the first guy showed us in his numbers, it's very crowded anytime of day. Now you are going to add 400 cars, school buses, delivery trucks, guests and visitors coming in and out of the apartment complex, you know, coming in and out on a two lane road I foresee -- what, are you going to add another traffic light at San Vito and McMillan? We have already got congestion east and west going from Black Cat all the way to Eagle. More stoplights along McMillan aren't going to make it any better. So, would encourage the city of McMillan -- Meridian altogether not to give in to overdevelopment. It just ruins the quality of life. Everybody came here for quality of life. You know, I would say put -- put the -- put the high density housing on roads that are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 21 of 53 already developed, like Ten Mile and Ustick, closer to 1-84. Don't stick them in the two lane roads inter -- interdispersed between the house -- single family housing. This is going to be a mess. Thanks. Seal: Thanks, sir. Hall: William Clark. All right. Okay. And Jodie Clark. Paul Elam. Chris Williams. Seal: Oh, he's coming. Hall: Oh. Excuse me. Yeah. We will get to you here in just a second. Elam: Hi. I'm Paul Elam. My address is 51 North -- I'm sorry. 5127 North Asissi Avenue in Meridian. I live also in Bridgetower West, like many of the people here. Dear Planning and Zoning Commission. Like so many families, we moved here recently seeking a better environment for our families. A safer environment. One where we could let our children play outside without having to worry about them. When we first moved here we lived near Linder and Ustick -- sorry. Ustick, which is beautiful, with two lanes in each direction, plus a turning lane in the middle. The road from -- between Ustick near Sawtooth Middle School north of Chinden -- Chinden was well thought out and looks beautiful and very safe for children. Then three months ago we finally decided to move to our permanent home. We chose Bridgetower West as the location of our new home. We did this because we wanted a peaceful and quiet neighborhood and a lovely community. Our family was super excited, because we immediately connected with great neighbors and loved the surrounding area. Then a month ago shock hit us when we learned that Alpha Development Group is seeking approval to build a giant apartment complex here between Bridgetower West and Walmart. We feel betrayed by the city and the original developer Mike McCollum. Many people here did not know that Mike was going to sell the land, which was originally supposed to be a senior living area, to another company only just a little over a year ago. These are emotions and though they feel real I'm sure the Commission, Mayor, and City Council only care about facts. So, let's discuss facts. This is a complete wrong location for so many reasons for apartments based on many facts. One gentleman just spoke a minute ago and talked about the perfect location would be where there is much more exit points. 1-84 down there has -- or near 1-84 and Ten Mile has two gigantic complexes going in on each side of 1-84 on Ten Mile. Perfect design, perfect planning and the way it should be to begin with. The road and the infrastructure near where they where they want to build this apartment complex is horrible and I'm sick and tired of looking at these pictures from a bird's eye view, when the real story is get in a car and go down there, sit at the lights, sit behind 20 or 30 cars on the way to drop your kid at Owyhee High School on McMillan and you can see in both directions on Black Cat, McDermott, all the way down -- every single cross-street has a subdivision slated to go in, either marked out with, you know, markers or it's already under development or partially built. I would ask Bill here to tell us exactly how many homes are either under construction or permitted to go in from the Ten Mile area all the way down to Owyhee School? Can you tell us how many that is, Bill? That's right. And that should be part of planning; right? Part of planning should be to anticipate what the area is and what it will Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 22 of 53 be and how that will impact -- impact all the people around there. It's sad to me that the Commission doesn't know. They really don't have the facts. How can you make a decision when you don't have the actual facts on how bad this area is? I would encourage you all in the next few days to go drive the area in the morning, in the peak times, go down by these areas and see how bad it is. Furthermore, I talked to somebody at ACHD for over an hour today and there is some things you should know. One, the requirements that they put on Alpha are the only requirements they can put on Alpha. They are strictly a body that only tells you what that condition may be. I'm sorry I'm going to keep going. Tough luck. But this Commission should look at that information. It's slated by ACHD to not widen that road, McMillan, until 2031 to 2035. So, we are talking eight to 12 years, maybe even more before we have any easing up of the traffic. This is serious. Serious for people that live that area. Another thing Alpha isn't really talking about is that number of cars -- I was on the last call that they did in the community. It was 400 to 500 cars -- they said 400 plus. It will easily be 500. Now, when they try to -- all those apartment dwellers try to shortcut off of Black Cat and cut through Gondola in front of Pleasant View Elementary, it's going to create a nightmare for all those parents that are walking their kids to school. In fact, I went there and passed out flyers and the school hadn't told any of the parents about what's possibly coming. They should. It's negligent to not tell those parents. That school is already at capacity. They have ordered portables for next year and it's going to be -- based on Marci's information they will probably be 120 or 30 percent above their number -- I'm sorry -- 120 percent of capacity by the end of this school year. That doesn't even include all the other complexes that are going in down McMillan under construction right now. This is going to be a safety issue and the charter for the city is safety. I'm sorry. I'm going to keep going. You might have to carry me off. Seal: You do need to wrap it up. Elam: The schools are overcrowed. The safety zone is jeopardized. We should be focused on safety primarily. The police response times has already been noted in the agency comments to be outside of their goal. Seal: Sir -- Elam: The Fire Department made no -- Seal: Your time is up. Elam: I understand that. Seal: Please excuse yourself, sir. Thank you. Elam: Well, I'm sorry. I think you should drive the area. You should know what we experience. Seal: Thank you. We appreciate your testimony this evening, but your time is up. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 23 of 53 Hall: Chris Williams. Seal: Good evening, sir. We will need your name and address for the record. Williams: Chris Williams. 4476 North Girasolo, Meridian. 83646. 1 think we are all hearing a very common theme here and that says we need less dense -- it needs to be less density. The last time they came here City Council -- you can look at the comments on the record. It needs to be less dense. I'm not understanding, listening to their -- you know, their proposed changes -- last time I think-- don't quote me, but I think it was around 243 units. They came back with less dense of 235 units. I would hardly classify that as less dense. You know, I -- I had a speech prepared here, but I don't want to bore you with kind of everything you are hearing, because I agree with everything, but even with the last gentleman -- 1, myself, I'm guilty -- I live in the community. I was going to Owyhee Tuesday evening for a middle school football game. Got down Black Cat, completely backed up down there. What did I do? Pulled off on a side street, I cut through Bridgetower West down Gondola, cut through The Oaks, avoided all that and I live in the community. So, unless, you know, the developer can come through with less density, which past meetings that I have done -- neighborhood meetings with them, they are not interested in, because it's going to cut into profit and I understand that. I can't see a solution to this. I -- I can't. The only solution I can see is for them to come back with an application for less density. It -- it's the only thing that I can see that can work. You know, unfortunately, you know, they are trying to push this project, you know, through and I -- believe they are doing everything that they are supposed to, but it doesn't mean that it's right. It's not the right fit for the community. We have heard from multiple people it needs to be in a different area. So, I understand you just can't deny it, because we don't like it as a community. I understand that. But you guys can recommend either a redesign for less density or you can recommend denial for being too dense. So, I would just ask that you guys please consider that in your decision this evening about the density and hearing the concerns. I have children. I have children that go to the Pleasant View Elementary School, it is, it's a nightmare crossing, you know, right there at McMillan and it's only going to get worse and to wait for a solution for eight to 12 years I think is a little unacceptable. If they want to hold onto the property for eight to 12 years, let the roads expand, and see where it goes from there. But I would ask that you guys keep that in mind with your decision tonight. So, thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Hall: That is the end of the people signed up to speak. Seal: Okay. It looks like we have a couple of people that are raising their hand online. Oh. Three now. Yes, you will have an opportunity for open floor. So, we will get to that. We just want to make sure anybody that's signed up and, then, they are online and they are raising their hands, so we will get there. Hall: We have Amanda M. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 24 of 53 Seal: Hello, Amanda. If you could give us your name and address for the record, please? Oh. Amanda, I still show that you are muted. Matlock: Hey, there. Sorry. My name is Amanda Matlock. I live on 3865 Riva Capri Street. We are connected directly to San Vito, that first loop in Bridgetower West. I'm currently standing in my backyard. The reason that we could not sell our house for over a year was because of the noise, which I have not heard anybody mention the noise -- traffic on McMillan. It's extremely increased. I would love it if they did more statistics on that, because of the growth in Meridian and how many houses have sold, you know, recently. Everybody's moving here, so an ever changing statistic. It's 45 miles per hour behind my house. There are three bus stops right here on the corner of San Vito and McMillan, which my children take the bus to school. It's always very chaotic. Our main concern is they haven't built any berms. A roundabout, like The Oaks right down the street would be super great. That way people would slow down, decrease the traffic flow. Like they said, there is no plans to expand the road, which is why we bought our house. We were trying to sell, because of the ever changing noise in our backyard. There is no way for us to decrease it and it is decreasing the value of our current home, as you can probably hear behind me. This is the lower part of the day, but there is still quite a bit of traffic. So, maybe some new statistics. A roundabout would be a great plan. Not connecting to San Vito would be most appreciative of us as homeowners. That would be super great. So, my current concerns would be to decline, unless those changes or updates would happen to take place. Thank you for listening to me today. I hope you could hear me. Seal: Yep. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Chad, if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself. Give us your name and address. Tyler: Yeah. My name is Chad Tyler and I live at 5570 North Botticelli Avenue in north -- in Bridgetower West. We recently moved into the neighborhood about five weeks ago, actually, from a house in south Meridian. One of the reasons why we chose this neighborhood was because of the community and because of how nice the community is and how the -- the neighborhood was really built around that. I have big concerns about increasing the density of this neighborhood and specifically in bringing in a more transient population. Some of the HOAs here actually even prohibit renting, because they wanted to create a more close community. I think there is big concerns around density and traffic in -- in both the roads and the schools. Even now we have two kids going to Pleasant View and there is -- they are already talking about hiring multiple new teachers and moving our kids between different classes just to accommodate how many kids there already are and I think adding this many units and this many new people just exacerbates that to an even higher amount and so just -- just to sum up, we paid almost four times what we did for our house in south Meridian for this house and the reason is is because this community is so nice and I think that this development goes directly against that. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 25 of 53 Hall: Matt M. Mishler: Yeah. Hi, guys. How's it going? I just want to -- Seal: Go ahead and give us your name and address for the record, sir. Mishler: Oh. I'm sorry. Matt Mishler. 4066 West Philomena Drive. And first off I just want to say thank you to everybody for showing up. I'm sick right now or else I definitely would be there with my red shirt, no doubt about it. But I wanted to just say something really quick and, Chad, who just spoke, kind of touched on it, but I also want to read a paragraph from the principal at Pleasant View and it will be it for me. So, it says -- this is dated August 30th. Although it is not the ideal time, since school has just begun, I finally received additional teachers. We need to lessen the class size in grade one and two when no bonds have been formed, comfort has been found and routines have been established, but we feel the grade level teams are ready to help with the transition. So, just as everybody is saying the schools are already overcrowded, they are our best resource and we all want our kids to be safe. That's all I really have. Everybody else has really spoken on all the serious points, but the school is overcrowded already. So, thank you for hearing me. Seal: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Hall: Mr. Chairman, that is all we have signed up online or in person. Seal: Okay. Now, if anybody else would like to testify, please, raise your hand and we will get to you all. Sir, go ahead and come up. Since you asked the question earlier we will start with you. How is that? Put you in the front of the line. Just need your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Bock: My name is Craig Bock. I live at 3894 West Viso Street in Bridgetower West, so -- I would be wearing a red shirt, but I don't own one. So sorry. So, Phil over here, he mentioned a common theme of those comments. One of the things he didn't mention -- and that this isn't a dig on you, but just safety. Safety is -- should be at least a common theme or a root of everything that's in there. For me that gentleman -- previous gentleman that was online read that paragraph from the principal. That's one of -- my daughter's in that class that has to move to another teacher because there are 30 students in her class. Okay. So, that is reality that we have to deal with. I take my children to school every day and I try -- and I try to ride bikes and walk with them every day to and from school. That's peak hours. Okay? That's the same time everybody's wanting to go down McMillan and it is tough. I have to cross McMillan on San Vito to get there. Okay? And we do it. We have gotten good at it. But you shouldn't have to get good at dodging cars; right? In your own neighborhood. And that's where we are at right now. Okay? And that's -- that's just to get to school and back. Okay? I have a concern with -- you know, they -- they talked about -- I mean in your staff report they recommended a cross -- or a connection right there at the -- at San Vito and Gondola and, then, I heard somebody say -- I think it was the developer talk about cut across traffic. Okay. The traffic down Gondola is -- is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 26 of 53 increasing every day. Okay? We have to go down Gondola as well to get my kids to school. There are no crosswalks on Gondola. None. There are lots of crossings and I see lots of kids going across it, but there are no official crosswalks. Okay? And if you create a connection between Ten Mile and Gondola onto Black Cat, there is going to be cut-across traffic there and I -- I just think that was a -- I don't -- I don't know why you would make that -- that recommendation that you would add that connection there, because -- and that's right at the north side of this development. Anyway. So, that's -- safety is my main concern with my children right now. Okay. Everything I hear that's what I have. Also I -- I tell you I -- I, you know try, to ride my bike. We ride to Walmart. We --we --we do that as a means to not only reduce our budget, you know, on fuel costs, but also just to do our part, okay, to keep cars off the street. But if this continues to get difficult and you guys make it difficult with this kind of density, we have no choice but to get in a car just to -- just to get places. Okay? So, COMPASS had their -- made their comments and I thought they were really good and they -- they identified that this will increase the stress level of pedestrians and bicyclists in that area. In their comments that's what they said. So, again, if you make it difficult people will choose not to use alternate transportation and, then, of course, sustainably is -- that's not the right way to go. It discourages it. One last comment. Timing. The gentleman with the developer, he said, well, hey, it's going to take three years; right? Well, okay, I don't see any schools going up. Schools are going to take that long, too, if the bonds are approved. Okay? We don't have that right now and you -- you have -- everybody said it. The -- the school district comments said it. The schools are overcrowded now. Okay? And projected to be overcrowded in the future. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you, sir. Sir, go ahead and come on up. You know what I'm going to ask, so go ahead and spit it out. Tomei: Could you repeat it again? I haven't heard it. Just kidding. Name is Nick Tomei. I live at 4643 North Tirso. We are on the south side of McMillan currently. It hasn't been raised yet. It's the only reason I'm standing up. I don't want to keep defining this -- redefining the same points ad nauseam. On the existing site plan one of the things that we had asked Dustin in the last meeting was the possibility of moving the parking lot that's in the -- the southwest corner of the development to the NE corner. The reason for that -- that's where McMillan and San Vito meet. Driving cars in the area it is -- is going to force a heavier traffic flow right in that specific section. Right now the only pool that's accessible to the community -- and, again, you know, Bridgetower West is split by McMillan; right? Part of our community is north and part of it is south. The one community pool is to the north. My three little ones, my twin six year olds and my newly minted ten year old, they want to use the pool during the summer. We don't allow them to cross McMillan at all without our permission. They can't go use any of the parks, basketball court over there without us driving them over, because of the intensity of the traffic and people flying up and down that road. Focusing a heavy emphasis on parking in that area, will -- will exacerbate this -- this challenge for us. So, we -- we were asking that there would be consideration of potentially flipping the plan to move -- if we are going to be approving anything for development of this site of moving parking to the north -- forgive me. It's northeast side, which would put it closer to Walmart where there is already Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 27 of 53 heavier traffic flow around the Walmart area. So that would seem to be a make sense transition if we are going to look to find a compromise here. So, that's all. I just wanted to add that point. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Tomei: I didn't have a red shirt either, so I bought a red pen. Seal: Very good. Ma'am, go ahead and come on up. Good evening. Just need your name and address for the record, please. L.Elam: Good evening. My name is Lisha -- Lisha Elam. My address is 5127 North Asissi Avenue, Meridian. I'm new to Meridian and just come to one year. I grew up in China. My high school -- I remember the front gate has wide street. Five street -- five lanes. Two on the side and one in the middle and also they have different -- different gate for different direction. I was shocked the high school going forward on each block. I was literally shocked and only one way -- not even a turning lane. So, I saw the cars just turning around and where -- at North Oak going to community, whatever, because and, then, they are just too -- it's unbearable. 1, myself, is not a best driver. I didn't drive in China, so I learned my drive in -- almost three years. So, I did thought, okay, what if -- what if I blink my eyes just bump to somebody. It is really stressful and to drive on that road and I -- I can't believe this is a -- you know, a lot of here, this is the planning for a major school and that school and the boundaries already to Settler's Park. So, all the families rely on McMillan, rely on Ustick. Ustick is a little bit better. Has a traffic light. So, when the traffic light is green there is a bunch of cars can go through, but McMillan is one at a time. It is really really frustrating. Really -- I mean scary for me, because I'm new, I'm not a good driver. I can't believe -- my high school was built in the middle of nowhere with wide open streets and with all the other buildings going around us still very wide open street. That's what I remember. That was many years ago. I'm still young at heart. So, I think reduce the density is really necessary and I'm in real estate -- in real estate last nine years in Washington. My broker about 30 million transactions a year. There is many ways to do that. One acre, eight to ten townhome with parking lot I think it would be much more fit for the road for the community and you can make lots of money, too. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Seal: Thank you very much. Sir, go ahead. And I apologize if I'm not getting you in order. We will get to you. I promise. That's okay. You were quick on the draw, so -- Chris: Good evening, sir. My name is Brian Chris. I live at 4902 North Botticelli in Bridgetower West and I do appreciate Alpha Development taking our voices into concern, but I am against this. A few things I do understand. It is zoned for R-15 and it's not -- if it's when, but that doesn't mean it's right right now. One of the biggest concerns of mine is traffic safety and that shared entryway. My daughter works at Wal mart and she's almost been ran over just walking to work. Also San Vito Way, as you have already heard, is a raceway. People turn right off of McMillan and they try to see if they can get zero to 60 before they make it to the pool. There is only one shared entryway for single residential Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 28 of 53 homes and apartments in the area that I can find and that's Prelude down by Linder and McMillan and I actually measured San Vito Way from McMillan to the cutout where it would merge across from right in my backyard and it only allows 15 to 20 vehicles before it there would be the backup on McMillan, because one car can't turn left or right, especially with the parking lot right there where everything's going to be stacked and bottlenecking and Mr. Holt also told us in a -- in one of the first meetings I was able to attend that he agreed with us, he understands our concerns, he hears us, but City Council at Meridian is forcing us to have this entryway here. You have two on the other side of Walmart. So, why have this shared way when you are trying to keep us in our community that is very much near and dear to our hearts? Also irrigation. We are on Settlers Park and I asked them where is the water coming from, because we are in drought. We have had delayed turn-ons. We have had early shutoffs. We have had multiple shutdowns for days to weeks and, then, you are adding this 16 acres or how many other -- nine acres of livable, you know, fund land to irrigate with irrigation that already doesn't exist for when we are supposed to have it based on it coming with our home purchase. And, lastly, would like to address the elephant in the room. In December the word of the night was density with 249 units proposed. In February one of our councilmen sitting right here said you didn't listen to us. You are still saying 249 units. You are just shuffling buildings around and, oh, we -- but we gave you a road that wasn't even a road legally and, then, tonight 235 units. That's only a reduction of 14 units from the original in December and that's not really a reduction in my eye, but, you know, I'm just a retired Air Force guy. But one thing I do find interesting and I hope I'm not alone is -- may I continue? Seal: Yes, you may. Chris: Thank you, sir. Unless there is another Alpha Development Group that lives at www.live-alpha.com that says 225 units on their website right now, I find it very interesting that they come before you again tonight with 235 when they originally said 249 and I would like to close with --just because the internet says that Meridian, Idaho, is the fastest growing city in America doesn't mean we need to add to it, because like Abraham Lincoln said, you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, go right ahead and come on up. Stinnett: Hi. I'm Susan Stinnett. I live at 3933 West Milano Street. I'm going to be a little bit different. I don't have kids. I moved to the neighborhood because I love the neighborhood. It is a true community. It has community values. I turn the corner coming home from work, I see the kids out playing all the time. I know I have to drive slow because those kids are out there and that's what we are trying to --that is what community is all about. I -- I -- I'm one of those people that come right off McMillan. Coming home from work yesterday I had two kids -- two teenage boys out riding a bicycle weaving in between cars, looking out for traffic. Having apartments come right out onto San Vito is asking for a major accident to happen and a tragedy. So, I don't know if there are plans -- and you already see it with the kids trying to come over to go to the pool. So, you are just making this worse and we need to consider something else. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 29 of 53 Seal: Thanks, ma'am. Sir, go ahead. Boettcher: Good evening. My name is Eric Boettcher. I live at 4037 W. Anatole Street, Meridian. Bridgetower West. I have over 30 years of emergency management, security consultant and Department of Defense anti-terrorism training, experience, and certification. I currently am an emergency manager for a utility company with over 24,000 employees and I'm their sole instructor on disaster preparedness. So, one of the things that we didn't talk about today is that, you know, I tend to gravitate to like minded people and neighbors and we are always talking about disaster preparedness and things that we are going to do to help our own community. When you have transients that live in apartments, they are really short minded. They have a tendency that they rely on the city and they could possibly gravitate into developments to try and gain sustenance and help for their own well-being and their family. The people that I talk to in my town -- or my neighborhood, a lot of them are former law enforcement, a lot of them are former first responders and, quite honestly, with the growth that's happened in Meridian we really don't have the confidence that the city has in the event that we come into a long term type of an emergency or disaster that your citizens are going to have to face. So, in development, single home, family units, we pretty much consider our town -- our -- our -- our homes as our castle. We have the means to maintain sustenance, disaster supplies. We have garages. We have sheds and rental units just don't have that space. So, now you are bringing in all of these folks that is already in an overpopulated city that perhaps doesn't have the ability to take care of their citizens during long-term disasters and these folks are going to be passengers and trying to attain some sort of level of benefit and well- being from the city that probably will not be able to provide it to them. So, for the safety of these residents, that will possibly be in this community or in this multi -- multi-unit dwelling, they are going to come over into our neighborhood and it could get dangerous and I'm just going to be straight up, because they are humans. They are going to look for sustenance, they are going to look for means to take care of their family and we are going to be protecting our town or our development in our community. So, I agree with everything that was said today. I do not concur with this plan and I -- and I oppose it. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, go ahead and come up. Good evening. Fedewa: Hello. Seal: Name and address, please. Fedewa: My name is Jennifer Fedewa. My address is 5350 North Ferrara Avenue. From the beginning -- well, I think I missed the very first one, but I have been on many of the meetings with Alpha Development trying to understand what's going to be happening in my neighborhood and to understand where they are coming from, but one thing that's clear to me is that they don't understand where I'm coming from. They don't live here. They are not in my community. What my community looks like to me is being -- me being able to go outside and walk my dog and it's pretty peaceful. It's quiet. I know all my neighbors. I can send my kids to the pool by themselves. They can ride their bikes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 30 of 53 around all the time and I'm not worried about the traffic so much right now. I mean it's there, but, you know, it's -- it's not to where I'm telling them that they can't go do things out in the community. The -- the traffic is bad on Gondola during the school hours, but, you know, there is a school there. But, then, I see the impact of having 400 plus additional cars in a parking lot that's on San Vito. They are going to be racing down Gondola to get to Black Cat and using that as a cut off and I feel like my child's safety and my quality of life and what I have become accustomed to and all of our neighbors have become accustomed to is -- is going to go away and I just think that is a fact. I mean we have -- we have heard so many statistics tonight and I appreciate all of those but I also want everybody to understand that everybody's hearts are in this community and at the -- at the root of everything this is going to impact our quality of life and our community and how we interact with each other, the safety of our children, which to me is the utmost reason. But it has already been spoken about so many times. But I -- I just want to know that my family is safe, that -- that we are not having to watch out for cars racing around all the time and -- and -- and people aren't watching out for them, because maybe they are only going to be living there for six months or a year and they don't have as much invested in this neighborhood as we do. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you. Ma'am, go ahead. Joy, we will try to get the -- Dan next online. Yep. Thank you. S.Chris: Hi. Stacy Chris. 4902 North Botticelli Avenue, Bridgetower West. Seal: Can you pull the mic a little closer to you? S.Chris: Sure. Seal: Thank you. S.Chris: I'm short. Seal: I -- I only say it -- if I have trouble hearing you I know we are going to hear -- S.Chris: Okay. So, 4902 North Botticelli. My home is directly -- the very intersection as -- when they come on San Vito Way to Apgar, my backyard is the corner lot and we -- that intersection is mostly affected. I would -- one, I would like to invite everyone of you to come sit in my backyard with me someday. We -- we have put a lot of money and effort into our home and I think that the majority of people here in Bridgetower West have done so as well. The other thing I would like to discuss that no one here has discussed tonight is our natural resources. We live in a high country desert. We have water issues and if we continue to build in this area and have high density, we will not have water to survive. I'm going to tell you that, because I'm a nurse and, guess what, the only thing you have to have in life to survive is water. So, with the over abuse of these natural resources and this particular issue with the high density -- and my husband spoke. It's -- their website says 225 units. But they are presenting to us tonight 239, 1 believe. So, I would ask that we very well consider as a -- as our whole community -- not just our area, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 31 of 53 but the City of Meridian that we love and adore and we are raising our families there -- consider the lack of building because of greed, because this is what it is. We don't want to become a city that a lot of people here left from. Not me. I'm from here. But this is different. They left those places because of those problems that are presented tonight. So, the other thing, too, if this proceeds, the -- the building -- they don't need to come into our subdivision. There is not a reason. There is areas from Ten Mile and there is areas from McMillan that they can access these -- this subdivision. The area from Gondola could be a walkway. They can still get their children to school, because the rest of the area people walk their kids and drive bikes. So, that's why we do not need continued more and more traffic in that area. The Costco apartments, right down the road, those are going up. Down McMillan is all the subdivisions going up. We have at the end of I- 84 Ten Mile, all of those apartment buildings going up. Down Prelude. Down Ustick. Linder. All of those are going up. Chinden. We -- we are growing without realization of our natural resources and so I would suggest that we look at that for future planning prior to continuing to approve building. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Appreciate it. Joy, if you want to go ahead and -- yes. Is there -- online we have a Dan Buffham. Buffham: Yeah. Can you hear me? Seal: Yes, sir. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and -- Buffham: Yeah. Dan Buffham. 3554 West Balducci Street, Meridian. I live in Bridgetower West, obviously. I have spoken all -- every meeting that you guys have had. Only reason I'm not there today -- I don't know if you -- well, not that you know my voice, but I have had to have -- I had an incident and I had all my top of my teeth ripped out about four and a half hours ago, but I feel it's necessary that I still speak during this -- this last meeting here. I found it interesting today that -- that I read that 183 homes are in Bridgetower West and on 54 acres and the Alpha Development wants to put in this many units, 235, 1 believe it is, on 16 acres and what is the aerial view going to look like? It's literally like slamming this small dense community in the middle of a bigger, nicer community. Also I believe it was a year and a half ago the Bridgetower West developer -- I forgot his name. Mike something or other. Wanted to build more denser homes and you guys flat out denied that and -- and I think they wanted to rezone it there to -- to something else, but it was -- it was flat out denied because of its density, yet we are doing something a quarter of a mile away, we are still considering this. The other thing is is 1, like my neighbor that just spoke, I would invite the City Council and Alpha Development to come over, hang out in our backyard, we have put tens of thousands of dollars into it and I look right at the corner -- or our house is a keystone lot that looks on the corner of Vicenza and McMillan and just sit there and watch the traffic. Come over for dinner, come over for breakfast, either way and you will see all the close calls. I -- I just had to go get my-- my narcotics I guess from Walmart and it took me almost ten minutes at 5:00 o'clock to get across that street without trying to get killed. So, I just -- I think it's -- I have said -- I have sent in a letter and I have sent in -- you know, I have spoken many times and I invite you to come and just watch -- you know, look at the neighborhood, look at the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 32 of 53 difference of, you know, the cobblestone streets, the bigger lots, everything, that's going to get literally destroyed. The other comment is is, you know, I know one of my neighbors said that they are putting a parking lot on the -- on the -- on the west side over there on San Vito and they want to flip it and even if you flip it you are going to have the same, but worse, because now you have the Walmart coming out into that same -- into that -- that Vicenza-McMillan area. Why can't we wait until this -- this output is -- or the exit and entrance area is gone through -- Vicenza goes out to Ten Mile, because that would give -- solve a lot of these problems. I mean the density is still a problem. That needs to be reduced and I implore you to deny this, because of the density alone, and the safety of it, but if there was another redirecting that out someplace else, you wouldn't have this issue and that's really all I wanted to say. Seal: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Buffham: Thank you. Seal: Sir, if you want to go ahead and come up. Molifua: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Tahri Molifua. I'm with Ball Ventures. Address is 2194 Snake River Landing -- Snake River Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho. I just wanted to address -- I appreciate you hearing the application. You know, there is a lot of-- you can tell there is a lot of concern from the community. I think it's important to maybe just try and address some of those concerns from Ball Ventures' standpoint. Ball Ventures is -- is a capital partner. You might have seen some of our signs and made recognition with Ball Ventures Alhquist. Mr. Parsons, if you wouldn't mind -- there is a slide that maybe precedes this just a little bit. I want to just address two things really quickly. First -- Seal: I was going to say, he has the ability to speak. He is an individual. Thank you. Molifua: Two -- two quick things. I have heard a lot of people talk about their investment as an -- as an individual. I -- I -- I would dare say that probably nobody's invested more in the City of Meridian over the last five years than Ball Ventures has. Included in some of those things -- Mr. Parsons, if you would go up maybe to the top, like third slide. Just wanted to make this connection. Ball Ventures has been the capital provider for things like Eagle View Landing, for parts of Ten Mile Crossing, for active adult communities like Bri and we have brought coworking facilities to Eagle View Landing. Shields is -- is was brought by Ball Ventures and I just wanted to make the connection to -- this isn't this is an Alpha Development project, but we are capital partner to them and -- and so the idea that we are not invested or we are not from Idaho is -- is -- is false. Also when you think about it, the 235 units -- I think 70 percent of those are studio units. I was just kind of cruising through Zillow, Bridgewater West, you know, those are about, you know, five -- four to five units per acre. If -- if you did kind of a bedroom count -- not a unit count, but you looked at how many bedrooms are being developed on this site, it's about 21 to 22 bedrooms per acre. If you were to kind of impute that to the single family residence and the density that they have, doing quick math, you know, average of four units on -- for -- for every five -- five -- five lots per acre, that's 20 units. The density is actually very Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 33 of 53 similar when it comes to actual bodies who will be occupying this -- this facility and I think that was also part of the mindset of the development group. So, appreciate being able to make those two points and I'm in favor of this -- of this application. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, go ahead and come on up. Jensen: Hi. Seal: Hi. Just name and address. Thank you. Seal: I'm Pam Jensen. I'm at 3833 West Daphne Street in Meridian there in Bridgetower West and I have a question for the Alpha Development, but I also would like to express just a little bit of an understanding that Bridgetower West is divided by McMillan and so the community on the other side of McMillan shares the things on the other side. So, we are -- we are split and we are having something go in on the edge of it and it just causes a lot more activity than what we can pretty much handle for a two lane road. So, when Alpha Development has the opportunity to discuss would they, please, clarify if the development is all farmhouse style or combined with any stacked flats that they showed earlier. I know you have a picture. A couple. But -- thank you. Seal: Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Ma'am, go ahead and come on up. A.Bock: Hello. I'm Amber Bock. I live at 3894 West Viso on the south side of the neighborhood. We have been in Idaho for a little over a decade, but I'm from Texas -- Seal: It looks like we need to mute Mr. -- or online. There we go. Thank you. A.Bock: I grew up in Texas, though, and I grew up in some areas that saw a lot of rapid growth very quickly, particularly Sugarland, Texas. I don't know if you have heard of Sugarland, Texas. I also lived in San Antonio and before getting in -- becoming a PA I worked for the Alamo Area Council of Governments and I worked with the City of San Antonio, Bear County, the state of Texas, at trying to work with walkable communities and I did a lot of work with community workshops. We found very quickly with the rapid development coming in that when it was happening very fast it became a problem with, of course, traffic. The Edwards Aquifer. Routes to school. It was encouraging people to drive, not walk or bike. There was just really poor planning at the very beginning and we quickly learned that we had to start thinking and putting in some infrastructure ahead of time in -- in -- in -- in conjunction with the pace of the growth and one thing that we started to do -- or that I -- if I can recall -- they started requiring developers donate land for schools, because the growing of schools and the money for bonds to build schools became a problem. So, they actually had developers donate land to approve developments in West San Antonio and, you know, I know people have said this before, but I'm a little bit doubtful of projects that have already been committed to getting complete -- one of them being the crosswalk there at McMillan that crosses from our neighborhood to the pool to the school. Every morning my -- my kids and I -- you know, not me, but my husband or 1, one of the two of us, wait for traffic. There is no safe place to cross and I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 34 of 53 went back and forth with the highway district and the -- and the school district and I think everybody is short staffed, there is no money, I basically got that it's the responsibility of West Ada to be putting in that crosswalk. This was agreed to in 2019. We are in 2022 and we don't have the one at Black Cat or the one at -- that crosses McMillan. So, just as a parent I'm thinking, wow, you know, is this ever going to get done? There is not any plans in place. So, I feel like we are already struggling and, then, my -- my concern -- my biggest concern is just bringing in development really fast. You don't have the infrastructure. It could take two, three, four or five years and it is a safety issue. Also my daughter is likely going to be moved out of her classroom already because of the growth of the school and schools are tricky here. It's hard to fund schools. They are crowded and there is no safety net. There is no limit of 25. They will put 36 kids in a class and like other states there is limits and there is no one that wants to own that. The -- there is no safety net. There is no saying this isn't okay. It's just, well, this is how it is, so we are going to put 36 kids in your kid's class until we can find another teacher. So, here she is starting school and she's probably already going to be assigned a new teacher and it's just these kinds of things -- I don't know. I feel like I'm having to supplement at home with schoolwork and -- it's just hard as a working parent and a taxpayer. I would like to see a little bit more thought and infrastructure put in before we jump into building so quickly. Thank you. Seal: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to raise a hand out there? Going once. Going twice. If anybody else online would like to testify, please, press the raise hand button. No. Nope. Sorry. Your three minutes is up. All right. Seeing none, if Commissioners don't have any other comments or questions or anything along those lines, we can close the public testimony or we can keep it open for a while if you would like to go in that direction. Lorcher: Motion to close the public testimony. Stoddard: Second. Starman: Mr. Chairman, can we -- Mr. Chairman, over here. Seal: Go ahead. Starman: We need to offer the opportunity for the applicant to rebut first before we -- Seal: You are absolutely correct. Sorry. So -- the applicant like to -- sorry about that. Wardle: We appreciate your counsel. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East Front, Boise. I am counsel for the applicant, but I'm also a proud resident of Meridian and a longtime resident of Paramount and I have been attending meetings in your jurisdiction for nearly 25 years as we work on development applications and so I appreciate Bill having this site plan up, because this is the fundamental issue here. Understand the concerns. This is a high growth community and we appreciate the diversity that all of our new friends from California bring us, but the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 35 of 53 reality is we need all kinds of housing, not just detached single family residences like you find in Bridgetower and Bridgetower West. But let's not lose sight of the fact that Bridgetower is a master planned project that was subject to a master development agreement nearly 15 years ago when it started down the pike and we ended up in 2010 with a development agreement for 300 acres. So, the benefits that the testimony you have heard tonight includes this element. The planning has been done for years. When we talk about installing infrastructure, part of the reason that ACHD is not exacting more here is because the developer has built the collectors that serve this project. Now, we have heard a lot of communication and a lot of comments tonight that evidence a lack of understanding of what Meridian code and Meridian planning does. So, as we look at this concept plan and we look at the concept plan that was approved in 2010, connectivity in these one square mile blocks in north Meridian have always been part of the plan. Part of the plan in Bridgetower. Part of the plan in Lochsa Falls. Part of the plan in Paramount. Part of the plan is to have a diversity of housing types and commercial nodes and that's what we have. We have had Walmart here and you probably know my colleague Hethe Clark, we have worked this site for years as we represented the Walmart developer in that project and we have represented various individuals that have analyzed this site prior to Alpha Development and Ball Ventures and what was clear from the City Council was we approved a development agreement with an intention as to density that matches a comprehensive plan that includes a mixed-use element that demands higher density residential. Why? Because this residential use here is, A, needed and, B, it's a buffer to the more intensive commercial use to the east. Additionally, a lot of the complaints that you have heard tonight about access and traffic on McMillan are ultimately minimized when you get the final development pursuant to the development agreement that was started in 2010 and has been modified various times, because those trips that you have heard about having to go out to Walmart no longer have to make the turn onto McMillan, but can utilize the internal collectors. Now, what is missed by many who -- who move to our community is we do charge impact fees for roadways, but we exact collectors and we exact right of way for frontage for arterials. We, unfortunately, do not charge impact fees for schools, which is something that we have talked long with the West Ada School District that needs to be done. But you were here, as I represented a property owner farther to the west, as we dealt with the consequences of Owyhee High School being built as far out as it is. But what's really important to note is when Highway 16 is extended and that is completed here in the next three to four years, in time as we deal with this, McMillan is disconnected from McDermott. When we look at the plan, the -- the traffic on McMillan is the local traffic. It's no longer that traffic filtering off of Chinden to get to 1-84 to, Ten Mile. So, we are here and I am proud to say that Alpha Development and Ball Ventures, yes, they came to the City Council, they asked to modify the development agreement. The City Council told us to go build what had been approved and consistent with our investment backed expectations we came forward with a site plan that is consistent with the zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and consistent with the development agreement and this is a time where frequently, as we represent clients in these matters, we know our clients are going to try to get creative and they do and that's what they did. City Council didn't like the creativity, said build what was there, because what was originally proposed addresses that connectivity and -- and I understand the concerns, but all the concerns you have heard about traffic tonight on Vicenzo and going back up to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 36 of 53 school, that's existing neighbors. That's existing neighbors, much like in my neighborhood, speeding down the roads where the kids walking to Paramount Elementary go. We all collectively have to change our behavior, but if we do not have the continuum of housing that includes townhouses, that includes flats, that includes these elements, you end up with a mismatched balance and you end up with a tax base that is skewed too heavily in the direction of single family residential and let's not lose sight of the fact that as -- as you heard today, a significant number of these units are one bedroom and studios. I personally wish we never came forward with applications that were one bedrooms and studios, that were 30 -- 70 percent that way. You know why? That guarantees that families aren't going to live in them. Those are young professionals. Those are single people. Those are retirees. Much like my parents who lived in an apartment in Paramount as they worked on building a house. Those are the kinds of individuals that buy in our community. They rent in our community. They live in our community. My Air Force son, my nurse daughter, will not be moving back to Meridian right now, because, A, our multi-family density is less than five percent for apartments and our single family residential prices, because of the type of product that has been built, do not afford our critical employees, the nurses, the CNAs, the paraprofessionals at schools, those to be able to live -- they end up commuting. So, I'm proud of this application. We comply with the Comprehensive Plan. We comply with the development agreement. The points of connectivity through this project solve many of the problems and are part of that master plan for Bridgetower and with that, if you have any further questions about the design or what we have done -- we have done our absolute best to come forward with an application that is absolutely consistent with the development agreement that's been approved and the requirements of your zoning ordinance and that's one of the disconnects and I talked to your counsel about it, I talked to your staff. One of the problems we have in Meridian is we end up with development agreements that have too much specificity on site plans, because the 2010 site plan cannot be built pursuant to your code. It doesn't have the requisite amount of open space. It doesn't have the requisite clearance for fire. It doesn't have those elements. Yet we have come forward with an application that has made appropriate modifications under the code to address that. So, this is pretty straightforward. You guys know it. We know it. I understand the frustration the community has. I really wish that multi-family applications were administratively level approved in this city. There is really no reason why we have to make every single multi-family application be a war, because these are our friends. These are our grandparents. These are our kids. And, you know, I end up carrying applications like this all over this valley and I am tired of it, to be honest, because I'm tired of how we denigrate people who rent. It is just -- Seal: Sir -- Wardle: -- it is. Seal: You comments from -- Wardle: You have heard it tonight. You are hearing it now. Who rents? We all rented. We all rented at one point in our lives. Not everybody can own -- and especially Idahoans Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 37 of 53 are being priced out of the market largely because of individuals who have cashed out of bigger markets and so we need the continuum of housing. We need a variety of housing types. This is a site that since 2010 the City of Meridian has designated it appropriate for multi-family of this density. We ask for your approval. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, sir. So, I will ask my Commissioners if you have any questions of the applicant, please, say so now. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Oh. Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Sorry. The -- the first resident that spoke on the traffic study. I wouldn't mind having the applicant explain that and -- and maybe also for Commissioner -- or for staff, has -- has ACHD approved that traffic study? Wardle: Commissioner Yearsley, Members of the Commission, we can address that. Yes. ACHD has approved the TIS for this application. The original initial testimony ignored the fact that, in fact, this utilized multi-family counts and also evidenced a lack of understanding of how traffic engineering works. I appreciate the fact that he sat out and counted cars, but when we talk about counting cars we look at a specific window, the p.m. peak hour, which is 4:00 until 6:00 p.m. and we evaluate based upon entry and departure. So, ACHD approved the staff report. ACHD -- I mean the TIS. ACHD indicated that McMillan currently operates at better than level of service E and that this will not cause it to go beyond that level of service. So, we are comfortable that the traffic engineers who prepared the TIS and the traffic engineers at ACHD who reviewed it did their jobs correctly, appropriate, and consistent with ACHD policy and best practices underneath the ITE manual, which is the basis for which we get the traffic data. Seal: Okay. Lorcher: Mr. -- Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: In regard to the products that you had, it's been mentioned a couple of times that it was 26 studios, 136 singles, 56 two bedrooms and 26 three bedrooms. I don't know if that adds up to the number or not, but that's what I wrote down. Wardle: Uh-huh. Lorcher: And, then, one of the buildings would be a three story and the others would be two stories. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 38 of 53 Wardle: Correct. Lorcher: Are all these products all rentals or are there home ownerships, like through like a townhouse type product? Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, this is a for rent product and to your question, yes, the -- the larger building on the south is the taller building and, then, the northern building is the townhouse style, but it is all intended to be for rent and there are certain benefits that come from that. One, we can ensure landscape maintenance and we can ensure maintenance of all of the amenities. We can also better manage the behaviors and conduct and most importantly as we look at this, because it is multi-family it will not qualify for homeowners exemptions and it will pay taxes at a higher per unit rate than the single family residences that you find currently that are owner occupied. Lorcher: Mr. Chair, one more question. Seal: Go ahead. Lorcher: I know you can't give an exact amount, but what was -- what's the price range are you looking at for the studio and three bedrooms? Wardle: Mr. Chair, I'm going to have to invite my client back up to talk about the economics. Seal: If you want to go ahead and give us your name and -- name and address one more time. Thank you. Holt: Sorry. Dustin Holt. Alpha Development Group. 166 South 14000 -- 166 East 14000 South, Draper, Utah. We are looking at -- so, one of the reasons we wanted to look at this, as has been shared, is creating a -- as broad of brush stroke for residents and for that various housing stock. So, studios to three bedroom units, 1,400 to over 3,000 dollars a month in rent. Lorcher: Thank you. Holt: While -- while I'm here, there was a -- there was a note -- oh, sorry. Seal: Thank you. You have answered. Holt: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Commissioner Yearsley or any of our other Commissioners, do you have any further questions? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 39 of 53 Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: There was some testimony today about -- things about Ada County School District, about Highway 16, about portables. I -- I heard the note from the teachers -- or the principal, but those particular agencies aren't here to be able to verify that information, so -- I live at the corner of Ustick and McDermott where Highway 16 is impacted and I know for a fact that McMillan is not a collector for Highway 16, it's going to be a bridge going across it and you go under it, so traffic for Highway 16 will not be -- Ustick is going to take the brunt of that. But I think when it comes to things about the school district and ITD, we should really have those people here speaking of those things, because there was some misinformation given tonight. Seal: And I completely understand what you are saying, but like all applications what we have to go on is what is in the public file. So, if ACHD puts on record that the roads can handle it, they own the roads, we do not. If West Ada School District puts out that there is capacity, they own the schools, we do not. So, if anybody wants to debate that there are other hearings to debate that at. Unfortunately, our hands are tied. So, that's the only comment that I will put out about that. Lorcher: And did Ada County -- West Ada School District say that the capacity would be manageable in the application? Seal: West Ada puts -- well, I was going to say we can all go back and we can read the report, so -- Lorcher: I don't have it in front of me. Seal: Okay. That's okay. Everybody calm down. Okay. Lorcher: Okay. Seal: Well, I have a couple of questions myself. I just want to make sure that we clear all questions, because I do not want to reopen the public hearing on this when we are done. So, for the EV charging, is that going to be a charge for the spaces? Wardle: That's a business point question. Seal: Okay. The applicant's indicating no. Wardle: The client indicated no. Seal: Okay. So, San Vito Way for -- and I say this because I'm -- I'm one of those interlopers that rides through the neighborhood and enjoys the parks that they have in there, because it is part of our pathway system for the -- is there a possibility of putting in a stoplight at San Vito Way for McMillan? At all? I mean to me because it's part of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 40 of 53 parks and pathways, I don't -- I don't understand why there is not something going in there. Wardle: Mr. Chairman. I mean, obviously, we have -- we are amenable with the staff's conditions and requests on enhancing the park -- the parkway and pathways there. Certainly if we have put -- if we have put the stop signal -- the stop signal crosswalks that we have at various places on -- on Linder and McMillan farther to the east, there should be no reason that that can't be here, but to your point it, A, has to be warranted by ACHD and they didn't feel that it was warranted with this application. It certainly may be warranted in the future and as the CIP for McMillan, yes, it doesn't get widened until 2031 or later. But there are a variety of improvements along Millan intended to address the issue of walkability and to make those streets more livable that are programmed. Seal: Okay. Can you speak to the traffic mitigations that are going to be put in on that cross-section street that connects the two roads? Wardle; Mr. Chairman, I mean, obviously, ACHD had primary -- ACHD and your staff had two primary considerations with respect to -- with respect to traffic mitigation. One was to provide that-- that --that westbound turning lane, which we can and will and, then, the second is ensuring that there is a connection that connects the commercial property to the east with the existing alignment of Milano back to the west. We have designed it and we will stub it if it can't be done with the adjoining property owner, but the adjoining property owner, obviously, had future development plans and obligations and it's just an issue of -- of the fact that you want that to align. So, we believe that that is a significant portion of the traffic mitigation, because it eliminates those trips out to McMillan solely to go to Panda Express. Seal: Okay. Last -- last question for you here. So -- and -- and I speak because we are -- we are trying to prevent wars; right? Okay. So, the biggest war I see in subdivisions are pools. I hate pools, so -- because they are always a point of contention. There is never enough. They are always overcrowded, so on and so forth. Would you consider something along the lines of a water park instead that can be larger and more accommodating for the folks that are there to use it? Yearsley: Sorry. Seal: That's okay, Mr. Yearsley. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we know that the issue of amenities in these types of developments in Meridian are always point of significant conversation and significant discussion. What is appropriate, how do we get there. Recognizing the nature of this site plan, recognizing what was previously addressed, recognizing the fact that this is a for rent product, not, like so many of our neighborhoods with an HOA managing multiple pools with -- with that degree of volume, I think the amenity package that our client has proposed is appropriate for this use and is appropriate for -- for this group and I think it's also important to note that we have provided a significantly greater number of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 41 of 53 amenities that are required and to the extent that there is concern that residents of this development will be utilizing, you know, the pools in -- in Bainbridge West, that's not going to happen and they are not going to utilize the -- the pools here. They are going to be able to utilize, you know, the open space. That's part of the reason the mixed-use designation contemplates multi-family is to provide that connectivity for pedestrian activity, provide greater open space and -- and those are the amenities that I think are going to be generally available, but if our client has determined that pools are appropriate for this type of multi-family product, we think the market will tell us if it's not and it may become a skate park in ten years. Seal: Exactly. So -- okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Yearsley, you can cough if you want to to signify no. Yearsley: Sorry. Seal: That's okay. Yearsley: No, I -- I'm good. Seal: Okay. With that, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. And I will take a motion to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022-0047. Lorcher: So moved. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022- 0047. All in favor say signify by saying aye. Did I get an aye? Okay. All ayes. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Who would like to go first? Oh. Actually, that's a great idea. So, we are going to pause here for five minutes for a quick bio break and we will be back to wrap up our conversation. Thank you. (Recess: 8:31 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.) Seal: All right. Thank you all very much. And I -- we have -- we have had a lot of questions and our attorney has helped a few folks out and answered some questions and stuff, but I would like to give you the opportunity to kind of explain our purview, basically, as -- as a Commission. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kurt Starman with the city attorney's office. So, will start -- this has already been discussed to a large extent, but just to reiterate and recap, I suppose, I was having this discussion with a couple of folks during the break in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 42 of 53 terms of, you know, what is the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to this application. So, we have talked about much of that, both the applicant and staff and to some extent the Commissioners themselves. So, we talked about the development agreement, zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and things of that nature. So, I think we have covered those bases well and that's certainly within the purview of the Commission. The part we haven't talked about as much and as I was looking at the staff report as well, it doesn't -- it's -- it's all there, but it's just not nicely packaged and so I thought it might just be helpful for everybody just to kind of discuss the parameters with which the Commission is operating. So, in addition to things like -- I have already mentioned the Comprehensive Plan and zoning in the -- in Meridian's code we talk about for conditional use permits here are the findings that you as a body have to make in order to approve a conditional use permit and there are a couple that are not going to be applicable to this particular application, but I think it might be helpful -- it's difficult to do verbally, it would be nice to have a -- perhaps a visual, but I don't have that in front of me. So, I'm going to sort of read this, but I think it might be helpful to understand, you know, what -- what are the -- these are essentially questions that you are tasked with to answer yea or nay and depending on your answers that -- that will lead to your ultimate decision as to approve the application or not or to ask for additional information. So, I'm going to do that real quickly, with the understanding that it's difficult to do in a verbal way, but I will do the best I can. And I might highlight the ones I think might be, you know, most applicable to your discussion this evening based upon testimony, both from the applicant and from the public and also based upon questions from the Commissioners as well. So, the language is -- is found, for those that are -- like to maybe look at this later or want to track along at home and so forth, this is found in the city's Unified Development Code and it's codified at -- so, I'm just getting it out of the way. No one cares about this, except for those that are kind of interested in that -- it's codified at 11-513-6 and it's titled conditional uses and it says this. It says -- this is -- these are the questions that you are tasked with. The Commission shall -- now you are -- this is mandatory. This is your -- these are your parameters -- your decision making parameters. The Commission shall based its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following -- and so here are those -- those questions, essentially, are issues that you are going to look at. Thank you, Bill. What a good guy. Bill's always -- always got my backside. So, Bill is putting the code up on the screen as I speak, but I will go ahead and read them as well, but I appreciate the visual aid. So, the first is that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. I haven't heard any testimony this evening from the applicant or from the public and there is nothing in the staff report that leads me to think that that -- that might be an issue, but that's a finding you have to make. Number one. Number two, that the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and accord with the requirements of this title. So, you have analysis in your staff report that talks about the Comprehensive Plan and from staff's perspective staff has indicated that based on their analysis -- on its analysis that that -- that they believe that this application does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, but ultimately at the end of the day that's for you as the Commission to make that determination. You have analysis in the staff--that's for you to determine, however, as the decision making body this evening. So, that's item number two. Item number three. That the design, construction, operation Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 43 of 53 and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. So, there is probably -- I would think it's fair to say there is probably a lot of testimony and information that may be centered around that issue, so, again, you will need to consider that testimony and the information before you, the record that's before you and you make your own decision on that. But that item might be -- require some deliberation. The next sub four talks about that the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. So, again, that's one you may want to deliberate. You have heard testimony about that, either directly or indirectly, and so -- you know, for the Commission to decide whether that finding can be made. Number five. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways -- I'm going to emphasize streets and emphasize schools, parks, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer. So, you have both testimony this evening -- also lots of information in your-- in the record, including reports from the West Ada School District and from the Ada County Highway District that address some of the issues -- all the issues, really, that were presented this evening. So, you -- you have lots of material to look at, both in the record, testimony tonight, but that's an item that we have heard a lot about this evening and you will need to -- the Commission will need to make its own assessment as to that finding that's required. The proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. You probably heard some indirect testimony about that this evening. Again, for the Commission to decide. That the -- and number seven. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors. So, you have heard some testimony about that this evening. There may be information in the record that you may want to rely upon as well, but -- so, that's -- item number seven might require some deliberation. Item eight I do not believe is relevant for this particular discussion, although there was some discussion about natural resources. So, let me just read it to make sure. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Again, for the Commission to decide -- I don't think we have much, if any, testimony in that -- in that regard, but, again, that's for the Commission to decide. And, then, lastly -- the last item there is not relevant as pertaining to nonconforming uses, which is not applicable to this application. So, I thought it might be helpful for -- for all of us to take a step back and think about what are the parameters that the Commission has to -- to work within and those are the findings, really, at the end of the day when you make your finding either, yes, this application ought to be approved or, no, it ought not be approved -- to be approved, these are the findings that you need to make, either yea or nay, that would support that type of decision. So, with that I would be happy to answer questions. Of course Mr. Parsons has a ton of expertise here, so I -- he and I are both happy to answer questions that you might have. Seal: Okay. Very much appreciate that. Thank you. Bill, is there anything you wanted to add on that? Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 44 of 53 Parsons: Well, just -- just a small commentary on it, but to Kurt's point, you know, in staff's recommendation we did look at those findings and we do add analysis in there for you as well to tell you that we did find that it does meet some of that criteria and, therefore, we did support the application. So, that's what we do. We analyzed it, we gave you the staff report analysis, we looked at the public -- the agency comments as well, analyzed that and, then, based those -- that recommendation for approval based on all the information that was gathered as part of the process. Seal: Okay. Thank you. All right. And with that, any of the Commissioners would like to go first with the discussion? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, please, go ahead. Yearsley: There was a lot of testimony today. Seal: Yes, sir. Yearsley: This is awesome. I like that we have people contributing and -- and sharing their concerns and -- and issues. I appreciate all the lectures we have received tonight and how to, you know, proceed forward with this. It's -- it's great to always get back to what we are -- what -- what our job is to do. I'm just going to be blunt. Do I like this project? No, not really. Is it -- is it better than most? Yeah. It is. I like that they have a lot -- a lot of open space. I like that they have the amenities and -- and stuff like that. I think it's a -- a reasonable area to put this -- this project. You know, does it meet the -- the code? In my opinion, yes, it -- it meets what the city has asked for and -- and everything. Will it cause traffic? Yes. You know, we as -- as a city we are growing, you know. We have -- it's a great place to live. People want to move here and, unfortunately, it's, causing prices to go up and we -- my-- my kids can't afford to live here anymore. So, they are moving away and, unfortunately, that's what's happening is we are having to build something that's more affordable for others to live and so with that I -- I would approve this application. Seal: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go right ahead. Lorcher: I am on the fence on this one. I understand the concerns of the community with the increase in traffic and -- and our infrastructure, especially in that corner of Meridian has not kept up to the growth that we have done. You will tell the people here that that corner is ideal for multi-family housing. So, if it doesn't happen today it's going to happen sometime, because it's a great buffer between commercial and your single family housing, so that you don't have the loading docks of Walmart in your backyard. Having high growth Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 45 of 53 diversity I think in all corners of our neighborhoods is important. I think a young professional, a retired person who wants a studio, my daughter who started out at -- at first to be able to rent in an area near that area would be someplace ideal that she would like to be in and to be able to tell her she can't, because it doesn't fit into the -- the way the neighborhood works is -- is not creating community, it's creating divisiveness. So, I agree with Mr. Wardle that we do need alternative and diversified housing elements throughout our entire community, not just along 1-84. The rents that they are suggesting from 1,400 to 3,000 dollars a month is probably not a transient family, it's a family that, you know, maybe working across the country, a traveling -- you know, somebody in sales and --and they move to different communities. It's definitely more than my mortgage right now here in Meridian. So, I don't think I would be able to afford to live in there. But with that in mind, the fact that we have denied a few other subdivisions along that corridor because of the high volume and the fact that the infrastructure is not there, tends to lead me to either deny it or possibly continue to be able to work out some design things as far as the way the layout is. It fits. They have followed the rules. They have done their homework. It's all -- all within our parameters of code. But just because it fits doesn't mean it should. So, I don't -- I haven't decided yet. Your comments outside the parameters are not helpful and it's something, as we talk about it tonight I will have to think about. Seal: Thank you. Commissioner Stoddard, go right ahead. Stoddard: Mr. Chair, yeah, I just want to say 1, too, am on the fence about it. You know, I have -- you know, I never like to see really high density stuff coming in. I have issues living in Meridian with shopping and different things like that. But I also have adult children who have been struggling to find places to live and, you know, have been going back and forth with possibly having adult children living with me, which is not what I want, but -- so, the idea of having affordable housing for them, too, is also appealing to me and, again, you know, within what we are supposed to decide I think, you know, a lot of the things fall within, you know, the guidelines of what they are supposed to be following and, again, I agree with Commissioner Yearsley that I don't necessarily like the high density stuff, but, you know, the design is a little better than most. I do like the open space and, you know, that's kind of-- I'm, again, on the fence about it a little bit myself as well, so -- Seal: I will just chime in with -- I mean there is -- as far as the multi-family development part of this goes, I -- I really like the product that you are proposing here. I think it -- the amount of open space, the connectivity within it and all that are -- I think they are great, so I do think that -- and I say this because of the parks and pathways system that's in place. I mean part of -- one of the conditions that's put in the report is that you have to provide the ten foot pathway in order to continue the parks and pathway. That goes across McMillan. Period. End the story. That is where it goes. I ride it all the time. So, that's -- my opinion is that that should be put in. I don't know if that's something that we can put in and we will probably have a further discussion about that, but to me it just absolutely makes sense to put that in there. There is a lot of people that are asking for it, not just for bikeability and walkability, but for the safety of kids going, you know, in and out and the fact that the subdivision was divided with McMillan to me is a head scratcher. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 46 of 53 How that was allowed to happen without some kind of stoplight intersection is beyond me. But, luckily, I wasn't here to approve that. So, I -- I do agree -- my son is one of those vagrants that -- you know, transients out there that live in apartments and stuff, simply because he can't afford to buy his own house, even though he continues to save what he thinks is 20 percent down and the goal keeps moving, so -- he's an engineer out at Micron. Makes good money. Can't afford to live in Meridian. So, do we need affordable stuff? Yes. Do I think this is affordable? No. He lives in Boise, because he can't find anything that's affordable in Meridian. That includes rentals. So, that's a problem overall. So, I -- I don't think this has anything to do with affordable housing personally. So, unfortunately, because we have had so many people that love this area move into it -- and pick your place. I don't care where you are from. I was lucky -- lucky enough to buy a decade ago, so I don't have this problem. My mortgage is less than the rent you are proposing for a one bedroom apartment. So, that's an issue. I don't know how we solve that issue, but it's an issue. So, you know, as far as the schools go, if you have moved here in the last decade, our schools are overcrowded. Period. End of story. You might have known that moving in, you might not, but the information was there. It's been there. When you moved into the subdivision that you are in -- most of you are in the same subdivision -- your kids go to Star Middle School. Last time I checked Star Middle School is seven miles away from your subdivision. There are two other middle schools that are closer than that. So, our schools are overcrowded and I say that both for--for both sides. Our schools are overcrowded. It is a fact. So, it doesn't matter if we have multi-family or if we have single family or if we have people living in huts, they are overcrowded. More people is not the solution. All of us contributed to that, whether we like to admit it or not. Our schools are overcrowded because we overcrowded them. One of the things I will say about the -- like I iterated before, we have to go on the reports that are given out by the schools. Yes, the schools are saying they are overcrowded. They are not telling us to stop. Unfortunately, they don't. They can't. So, that's the way that the state works. So, we all enjoy having a balanced budget. I do. Love living in a place that doesn't owe money. Unfortunately, that comes with some drawbacks. The drawbacks are we don't spend money until we have money to spend. The way we have money to spend is you put more people in. You put more people in you draw more taxes, you pay your bills. That's the side effect of this. So, we are getting more houses. We are getting more taxes. We are going to get more schools. We are just outpacing the growth that they are capable of keeping up with, so -- and as far as McMillan, it's the elephant in the road. McMillan is the most horrible road in Meridian for a lot of different reasons that everybody has already elaborated on. There is huge power poles that are there. There is ditches that are there. Nobody wants to spend the money to widen that thing. So, it's a horrible road. Might seem like a nice quiet country road, but it's like Black Cat. So, I'm one of the people that, you know, I offend and I cut through neighborhoods, because I don't want to have to drive down parts of Black Cat, parts of Ustick, so I go out to Star Road to get to Chinden. I don't touch Black Cat with -- I don't go down Black Cat unless I have to. That's my only option, though, sometimes. So, I understand. I live in these neighborhoods right next to you guys. So, I see it, too. Went two miles to my dentist this morning. It took me 15 minutes. That's -- that's not great. I used to work at HP about 15, 16 years ago. Had a motorcycle. Took me nine minutes to get to work. That was HP. So, you know, there is a lot of crowding that's going on. I do -- would like to say, hopefully, instead of putting in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 47 of 53 a pool you put in a water park or something else, because every time we have meetings about any kind of large development or multi-family, pools are always in contention. There is just never enough room at a pool to put everybody in it. So, anything but a pool in my mind. Sorry. I have got a lot of notes here. There was a lot of testimony, so I'm probably going to droll on for a while, but I'm the chair, so I will. Yeah. Like I said, the ACHD report is five years old data. So, I mean that's kind of a tough pill to swallow, but that's the information they gave us. So, unfortunately, I think ACHD has kind of failed us again in that. So, it's not the first time it's happened, it's not the last time it's going to happen. I recommend that all of you pay attention to what ACHD is putting out. Ask for public hearings. Please start to go to them. Please let them know your concerns. I have the same concerns. I don't think our roads can handle what we are building. But that's not for me to determine. I don't get to sit down on a street side and count cars. It doesn't work that way, unfortunately. They own the roads. We do not. So, you know, I understand all of this stuff and I -- you know, I kind of wish that we weren't doing as much multi-family as we are doing in Meridian, but we are kind of stuck doing it, simply because most people can't afford to buy the houses that we are putting in anymore. I mean my house that I bought, you know, a decade ago is worth over a million dollars. That is a ridiculous amount of money for my property. I wouldn't be able to live there if I had to buy it today. There is no way. So, the option for that is to move to multi-family where people can at least kind of afford it. Hopefully. Maybe. That's about all I got to say. And, luckily, I don't have to make a motion. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, please, go ahead. Lorcher: Can I ask the city attorney a few questions? Seal: Absolutely. Lorcher: So, we are -- to be clear, we are voting on a CUP. Conditional use permit. Starman: That's correct. Lorcher: And so the development agreement or the zoning of R-15 is there. City Council said work with what you have; correct? Starman: Correct. We have an existing development agreement and -- from both the planning staff and from the City Attorney's office we have concluded that this application complies with that development agreement. So, that's not before the Commission this evening. That's not a decision point for you in your deliberations this evening and as you -- Commissioner Lorcher, as you alluded to, the zoning is in place. This property was annexed and zoned some time ago when the development agreement was entered into and so it has the appropriate requisite zoning for this particular project in terms of density at R-15. So, that's not an issue before the Commission either. So, really, what's before the Commission this evening is the conditional use permit is subject -- which is still on the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 48 of 53 screen and in the screen right before you as well, so that--that really--that really outlines your decision points in terms of the findings this Commission needs to make to say-- you know, to approve the application or to deny the application are really confined within that conditional use permit framework and this is a situation where the Commission is the decision making body. So, your decision tonight is -- is not a recommendation to the Council, this is a decision to approve or to deny the application. Of course your decision potentially could be subject to appeal by either the applicant or others -- other interested parties. But we will cross that bridge later if necessary. Lorcher: So, if we did -- if we approve it, then, they work with the city with the development agreement and all of the little nuances that the city planners have asked them to do, like moving a street or changing -- not changing parking, but, you know, aligning things, that's something that they continue to work with with staff; correct? Starman: To a very limited extent. So, I would say if the Commission has strong feelings about topics of that nature I would encourage you to -- to discuss that and deliberate that this evening and potentially include that in your motion, because, really, you know, what's before you tonight is -- is the conceptual site plan and an extensive list of conditions and that site plan and those conditions really reflect the presentation you received this evening. So, if you, as a Commission feel something -- there is something of substance that needs to change, you ought to discuss that tonight and incorporate that into your motion. That would be my recommendation. Now, staff can make -- as we, you know, transition -- let's say hypothetically if the Commission approved the CUP and the project proceeded, staff can make minor modifications at a staff level with director approval and, of course, there is the certificate of zoning compliance that occurs and design review and so there is definitely other steps and other changes will occur, but they won't be substantive changes. So, really, if that's an issue for the Commission you will have to deal with that this evening. Lorcher: Okay. And one final thing. If we deny the CUP, the applicant has the ability to appeal; correct? Starman: That is correct. Lorcher: And do they have a time frame in which they would come back to the city with a new design plan or is there like a time frame where the developer can work with the city on something else or once it's denied they no longer can do this project? Starman: So, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Lorcher, I'm going to rephrase it just a little bit. I think I will answer your question, but let me just -- I won't rephrase, but I will just answer it this way, that -- let's say hypothetically if the Commission voted to deny the application, then, that could be appealed -- that decision could be appealed to the City Council, which would consider a new -- sometimes called de novo and the City Council -- there wouldn't be a new -- at that -- at that hearing before the City Council I wouldn't envision a new site plan or new ideas and so forth. Really it's the -- what's going before -- come before the Council would be to say this is our application, it was considered by Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 49 of 53 the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied, we appeal that decision. This is our application. We are asking you City Council to say yes. So, I don't envision any significant changes between what the Commission does and what the Council might do. Now, depending on what the Council might do at that point in time other changes could happen going forward, but not -- I don't envision significant changes between the time of the Commission decision and Council review of an appeal. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Any other discussion? There are a couple of things in here actually that I would like to address. So, there was a few people that were concerned in their testimony about the, you know, fire safety, different things like that. So, I mean one of the things that the fire department is going to require is that -- and that code requires is that this does, you know, dump out onto San Vito Way. So, that's going to be required by the fire department, that's going to be required by code, that is just going to be required. So, it can lead to cut-through traffic. I don't know that anybody would want to turn in, drive through that subdivision, and jump on to San Vito Way. I certainly wouldn't. But, you know, that's -- that's a potential. So, again, I'm one of those people that cuts through subdivisions occasionally, knowing that I don't like it to happen in my own, but that's the way that it goes sometimes. So, there is also -- you know, again, there is the -- the ten foot pathway that's part of the parks and pathway plan, you know, the major overall parks and pathway plan for Meridian. So, that's cutting through here as well and that's going to connect some -- that's going to make for some biking connectivity that has been waited for for quite a while. So, it's pretty -- pretty expansive. So, hopefully -- and, Bill, I will ask you, is -- can we provision -- you know, can we put a condition in here to have a lighted -- or signaled crossing at McMillan as part of the parks and pathway plan? And I know -- I'm putting you on the spot, I know, but -- Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't recommend that. You are going to pit us against two agencies, meaning -- really, it's like you -- as to your point, ACHD has the authority as to what those improvements would be. I think if I'm understanding you want one of those HAWK signals and we -- Seal: Yeah. Parsons: -- where you cross and certainly there is other avenues for that to happen. Either go to ACHD, take the issue up with them. The city does have a transportation commission that you could petition something and have them analyze that or study it. You have the parks commission you can go and talk with them about this issue. But right now that puts us in a very tough spot to -- to require something like that. Seal: Okay. Understood. Commissioners, more discussion or a motion is kind of where we are at. Yeah. This -- this is a tough one for me, so -- I mean it checks all the boxes. But, again, you know, we -- we all live in this area, so -- or I live in this area I should say. You know, it's tough -- tough to see more traffic coming in. Tough to see the schools handle more kids. But it's not -- not preventing anybody from moving here, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 50 of 53 Starman: Mr. Chairman, I thought -- I just want to make one comment. Let's see how to phrase this. But I don't want to presuppose how the Commission -- you know, what the motion may be or what the -- what the decision might be, but to the extent -- actually, this is true in either case, but particularly if the Commission has an inclination to deny the application I would really like to encourage the Commission to make reference to the findings required by the code, which are still up on your screen, and to articulate the facts in the record that, you know, give you pause or why you cannot make a particular finding. So, it would be helpful to build -- to create a record -- if that's -- you know, that's where the Commission decides to go, it would be important to -- both now and, then, we will adopt findings at a subsequent meeting, but it would be important to articulate your reasons why you can't make one or more of these findings. Does that makes sense? Seal: Yeah. Thank you. I'm all ears, Commissioners. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 1st, 2022, with no modifications. Seal: Is there a second? Starman: Mr. Chairman, I would offer two thoughts for you. One is the -- the -- the chair can second a motion if you want to for the purpose of discussion. You don't need to. Number one. Number two, if you don't have a second, then, the motion dies and you will need to move on and seek an alternative motion. Seal: Understood. I am not willing to second it, but I -- kind of back to leaning towards a continuance at this point and I will be clear about this. The only reason I would seek a continuance is just to see what we can do about putting in a signalized intersection there. That's about it. I mean I have got to be honest, this fits everything else. As far as multi- family goes it's great. Generally speaking we are fighting trying to get open space, trying to get paths, trying to get connectivity, trying to get things like that to go in. I mean they exceed the parking. They exceed the open space. They have reduced how many stories, you know, that are in there and everything, so that's about the only reason I would lean towards a continuance in this. If that's not in anybody else's appetite, then, I would suggest that we move forward with Commissioner Yearsley's motion and somebody second it and we go for it. So, is there a second? Okay. Seeing no second, motion dies. But that means somebody else gets to make a motion. Starman: Mr. Chairman, I would interject while there is a short pause as people are pondering this issue. To the extent your fellow Commissioners are interested in the idea of a continuance for the reason you articulated, I think that's perfectly acceptable. I just want to give two thoughts. So, one is that you will need to reopen the public hearing. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 51 of 53 Perhaps for that limited purpose of receiving additional information relative to the traffic signal. So, we would need to reopen the public hearing if you choose to go down that path. And, then, I think it -- you know, to the extent the Commission wanted to go down that path I think the nature of the motion essentially would be to direct staff to research that issue more, contact ACHD, contact the school district, work with the applicant and bring information back to you, you know, either at the date certain or however you want to characterize that. Seal: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. Commissioner Lorcher? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yep. Go right ahead. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I moved to deny file H-2022-0047 as presented in the hearing on September 1st, 2022, for the following reasons: According to the CUP guidelines, the ACHD study has had too much time to linger based on current conditions and the increase in traffic -- safety and infrastructure are not adequate at this time. Seal: Is there a second? Stoddard: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to deny file number H-2022-0047. All in favor say aye. Commissioner Yearsley? Starman: Mr. Chair, you may want to ask for nay votes. Seal: Are there any votes? Actually, Madam Clerk, can you take roll? Yearsley: Sorry. Sorry. I'm on -- I was on mute. I have a nay vote. Seal: Okay. So, that is two ayes. One nay. Motion to deny passes. Starman: I didn't catch your vote, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. Seal: I didn't vote. Starman: Are you abstaining? Seal: I am abstaining. Starman: Let me just think for one moment. Seal: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 52 of 53 Lorcher: Do we have a quorum? Starman: You have a quorum, so member a can abstain and we still maintain quorum. It is -- I think when a member abstains it is the majority of those voting. So, two-one likely carries the day. So, I'm -- I would agree with your conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Two-one vote would pass the motion. Seal: Okay. So, two-one vote to -- Starman: Let me be clear for the record of what I understand the vote to be is to be two votes in favor of the motion, which -- and to reiterate, the motion was to deny the application. Seal: Correct. Starman: There is two votes to deny the application. One vote -- one vote against that motion. And there is one abstention. Seal: Correct. So, motion to deny -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair, could we do a roll call vote, so we know who said -- who did what? Seal: Absolutely. Madam Clerk, do you want to do roll? Roll call: Stoddard, yea; Lorcher, yea; Yearsley, nay; Seal, abstain; Wheeler, absent; Grace, absent. Seal: So, we have two for, one against to deny. File No. H-2022-0047. So, the motion to deny passes. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Okay. Thank you all. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go right ahead. Lorcher: I motion we adjourn. Stoddard: Second. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 1,2022 Page 53 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 9 15 1 2022 ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the August 18, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 18,2022 Page 30 of 30 Grace: Second. Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. ZOA-2022-0001 . No modifications. All in favor say aye. No opposed, so motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: And with that I will take one more motion. Wheeler: Mr. Chair, I motion that we adjourn. Lorcher: Second. Seal: It's moved and seconded to -- that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. No opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:24 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 9 1 1 12022 ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2022Meeting Bridgetower Multi PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP family CUP- Site Plan Noted areas of revision Elevations Changes to Agenda: Item #Not yet known: Bridgetower Multi-family CUP (H-2022-0047) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 16.6 acres of land, zoned R-15, located on the north side of W. McMillan Road between N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way, near the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road. History: CPA-08-003 (Comp Plan Map Amendment to change property to Mixed-Use Community); H-2019-0001 (Summerwood MDA, DA Inst. # 2019-055407); A-2020-0162 (PBA); H-2020-0108 (MDA, PP, RZ – Commission recommended denial, application was withdrawn); H-2021-0094 (MDA; Council denied MDA request). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres of land (gross density of 14.16 du/ac.) in the R-15 zoning district (14 two-story buildings and one (1) 3-story building). 235 units consist of 26 studios, 131 1-bedroom units, 52 2-bedroom units, and 26 3-bedroom units. The subject property is part of a larger Mixed-Use Community (MU-C) area—this designation calls for a mix of residential and commercial land uses that are thoughtfully integrated. In addition, the other hard corners surrounding this arterial intersection are noted as commercial and have existing or developing commercial uses. Access is proposed via driveway connections to existing collector roadways (San Vito Way & Vicenza Way) – two along the east boundary, and one along the west boundary. Interconnectivity is proposed through the site via multi-family drive aisles; no new public roads are proposed or required with this development. All abutting public roads are existing. Adjacent collector and arterial roadways have existing buffers and detached sidewalks. ACHD, per traffic study analysis, is requiring a westbound right-turn lane onto Vicenza Way on W. McMillan Road. No other road improvements are proposed or required by ACHD. In order to help the flow of traffic in this area and further minimize trips along McMillan, Staff recommends adding an additional connection to San Vito Way in the northwest corner of the property. This connection was discussed and proposed with previous applications and Staff fully supports its inclusion as it will allow for cross-access between this multi-family site and the commercially zoned property directly to the north. Further, this cross-access will assist this property and the property to the north to better comply with the mixed-use policies and vision within the Comprehensive Plan, reduce the number of access points to this collector street by having a shared access, and it will offer pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial that is required by City code. Based on the total number of units proposed and the bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 403 parking spaces, with a minimum of 209 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport. According to the submitted site plan, the Applicant is proposing 462 spaces with 235 of these spaces to be covered by a carport or located within a garage. The proposed parking exceeds minimum code requirements by 59 spaces. Drive aisle near the south end of the site connecting San Vito Way to Vicenza Way separates the townhome style product from the 3-story internally accessed apartment building. Staff has noted to the Applicant that some form of traffic calming should occur along this drive aisle to help with pedestrian safety; as currently proposed, Staff believe this drive aisle to be an unsafe area for residents to cross to access the amenities and open space located in the center of the development or the arterial sidewalk along McMillan. Staff has included recommendations on how to revise this area of the site as conditions of approval. Applicant is proposing approximately 6.7 acres of qualified open space (approximately 40%) for the project, well in excess of code requirements. Some of the open space shown to qualify is adjacent to Vicenza Way, a collector street, and McMillan Road, an arterial street. All of these areas are connected to larger open space areas so Staff finds these areas should be allowed to count through the conditional use permit process. According to the submitted plans, 13 qualifying amenities are proposed with multiple amenities from each required category. The submitted plans show compliance with all dimensional and specific use standards, including but not limited to, building height, setbacks, accesses, and parking count. Written Testimony: A large number of comments have been submitted against this project. Main takeaways are: 1. Concerns over the increase of traffic that 235 apartment units would bring to McMillan; 2. Belief that future apartment residents would be transient in nature and would increase crime in the area and lower property values; 3. School capacities; 4. Apartments do not match existing Bridgetower neighborhood character. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 1, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0047, as presented during the hearing on September 1, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #\[#\]: \[Project name\] (\[file #\]) Application(s): Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general location\]. History: \[if applicable\] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\] Summary of Request: \[details\] Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] Why? \[i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum requirements or not, process comments/story\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\], with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley Horn, Located at 2620 E. Jasmine St. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022- 0045 A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. STAFF REPORT E IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT p HEARING September 1,2022 Legend DATE: Continuedf rom:August 18, 2022 0 ) ��Pro�c= Laco�or TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Kingstown H-2022-0045 -- LOCATION: 2610 E. Jasmine St., generally located inthe south 1/2 of Section 32, TAN.,RJE. (Parcel#R4582530400) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Kingstown Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 8.20 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR)/ag Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 28 building/6 common Phasing plan(#of phases) 2 Number of Residential Units(type 28 single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) 3.42 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 1.23 acres(or 15%) buffer/qualified) Page 1 Amenities Picnic area in a 5,000+square foot area; and dog waste station Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 4/7/22 History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing There are(3)existing stub streets to this property(i.e.N. Conley Ave.,N.Rogue Conditions River Ave.,and E.Jasmine St.) • CIP/IFYWP • Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Ustick Road to McMillan Road. The design year is scheduled in 2025 and the construction date has not been determined. Wainwright Drive is scheduled In the IFYWP for the installation of wayfinding and bikeway signage in 2024. The intersection of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,6-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and replace/modify the signal between 2026 and 2030. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via the extension of existing stub streets from adjacent H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) neighborhoods. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section IX.C Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ms,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section IX Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent Page 2 1 1 1 IN ^tic= ....... ,,,R NOW „-`^^^^Jffff�i:[ f .-- • may: #illll -PII 1111 '•� �YL -- 4.....'...'�.�.:�r •: i_� ��� Mi :I: I[1[ 2 I _#___ ■ ,"I`r'„� . LM'ICCA' .........■ ' ' ____ '2S yy.+• 144I[I '� Yn JP11.���I���: �• -.�•.v%-.. -. r i ■�_s ■ I........N4!!"IIIIII milli [II[I.[Ix .M.V- —II '+�• I::a y, �C�:, °��., [ -[}° ' 111111 •^i: ,,," - =a— ti ■[[N Imp •r:�: 11 Ili a�• - on 11 ���++ri� •.' a.. �•��!pp�M _ - � ��_ � y• '.:_ �.�_- _� � ,yid 'y^!— il ^� _ Sew, � �• _` ..I-_`, _.� i�h .'...��., go Will IF •��, J■11`����!''i;"[.:�.�':;=1;;;::��a .'......_�.:� e:e•�n.��� ,r, TII< +■� a ' -•�-;' � i11 1ji11i11111 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Nicolette Womack,Kimley-Horn—950 W. Bannock St., Ste. 1100,Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: Robert Hilton, High Lakes,LLC PO Box 1436, McCall,ID 83638 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 8/17/2022 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 8/11/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 8/8/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 8/11/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by single-family residential properties on land also designated MDR on the FLUM. The Applicant proposes a 28-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 3.42 units per acre,which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM)does not depict any collector streets across this property. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached homes exist to the north, west and south and are also in the development process to the east; multi family apartments exist in close proximity to this site to the southeast. Page 4 • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) This area consists primarily of single family detached homes with some multi family apartments to the southeast; only single-family detached homes are proposed within this development. The proposed development offers a variety of lot sizes from 4,000 to 11,730 square feet(sf.) with the existing home on a 22,912 sf. lot. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) Although the gross density for the overall development at 3.42 units/acre is within and at the low end of the desired density range in the MDR designation, the lot sizes proposed in the first phase along the north boundary are not compatible in size and provide a poor transition to existing lots. The proposed lots in Phase I are mostly 4,000 square feet(or 0.09 acre), while the abutting existing lots in Zebulon Heights and Champion Park subdivisions are 0.25+ acre in size. The transition from proposed to existing homes along the north boundary range from a 2:1 to a 5:1 transition. A better transition in lot sizes should be provided. No buffering or screening is proposed. The lot sizes proposed along the eastern boundary in Phase II are much larger/wider and range from a 1:1 to 1:4 transition.A better transition in lot sizes should be provided in this area as well. No buffering or screening is proposed. The transition/lot configuration to the south and west is adequate as the lots are turned perpendicular to the existing lots. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed and existing adjacent uses are all single-family residential, which should be generally compatible with each other; however, the lot sizes proposed along the north and east boundaries are not compatible with abutting residential lot sizes and may present conflicts due to not enough transition in lot sizes. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed infill development will likely negatively impact abutting homeowners to the north and future homeowners in this development along the eastern boundary in Phase II as there is not a compatible transition in lot sizes in these areas. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider testimony from these homeowner's in determining if the proposed development will negatively impact the abutting existing development(see letters of public testimony from neighbors). • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with Page 5 current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway connection is required between N. Conley Ave. and N. Rogue River Ave. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. This pathway will provide a link between Champion Park and Zebulon Heights subdivisions. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." If annexed, the existing home will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the City wastewater system. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 28 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 3.42 units per acre(see Sections VIII.B, E). Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. This partially developed property is an enclave surrounded by existing and future single-family residential detached homes to the north(Zebulon Heights), south and west(Champion Park) and those in the development process to the east(Delano). As noted above in Section V, development of infill properties is supported provided it doesn't negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Because of the lack of adequate transition in lot sizes to the north,the proposed development will likely negatively impact abutting property owners.Additionally,the lack of transition in lot sizes along the east boundary will likely negatively impact the future owner of Lot 4,Block 3. Therefore, changes to the development plan are necessary to provide a better transition in lot sizes in these areas.Letters oftestimony have been submitted by some of the adjacent existing residents requesting a better transition in lot sizes and density is provided. One option would be to"down-zone"to R-4,which would require minimum lot sizes of 8,000 s.f. instead of 4,000 s.f.,and a minimum street frontage of 60 feet instead of 40 feet,which would be result in larger,wider lots for greater compatibility with existing abutting lots.However,with the amount of right-of-way being provided with the extension of three(3) existing stub streets,the Page 6 retention of the existing home, and the provision of the required common open space,this would bring the gross density of the development below the minimum desired in the MDR designation. Another option would be to stay with the R-8 zoning and reconfigure the lots along the north boundary in Phase I so that wider lots are provided in that area resulting in larger,fewer lots for a better transition; and add lots in Phase II resulting in smaller,narrower lots for a better transition to existing abutting properties—Staff prefers this option as the density should still be consistent with the MDR designation and the zoning would be consistent with that to the south,west and east. Staff recommends the Applicant make these changes to the plat& submit revised plans at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing.A draft should be submitted to Staff prior to the Commission hearing demonstrating how these changes would affect the overall density and transition to adjacent properties. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,000 to 57,541 square feet(s.f.) (or 0.09 to 1.32 acres). The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 3.42 units per acre.The subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2)phases as shown in Section VIII.B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and several outbuildings on the property that are proposed to remain until development of Phase 2.With development of Phase 2, all of the existing structures will be removed except for the existing home,which will remain on Lot 3,Block 3. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the second phase final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access is proposed from the extension of existing local stub streets(i.e.N. Conley Ave.,N. Rogue River Ave. and E.Jasmine St.)from the south,north and east. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No street buffers are required per UDC Table 11-2A-6 for internal local streets. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VIII.C. There is a total of 176 existing trees on the site totaling 2,232.5 caliper inches(see existing tree inventory and plan in Section VIII.D). A total of 1,520 caliper inches are proposed to remain with 712.5 caliper inches proposed to be removed. A total of 391 caliper inches are required for mitigation as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5; a total of 170 is provided,which is 221 less than required. Staff recommends one(1)2-inch caliper tree is provided in the front and back yards of each building lot toward the mitigation requirement,which would leave 109 caliper inches remaining that could be provided in common lots,or Alternative Compliance could be requested to this standard for the remaining mitigation trees (see UDC 11-513-5 for more information). Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. Page 7 Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 15% (or 1.23 acres based on 8.20 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided in this development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 1.23 acres(15%) common open space for the development(see Section VIII.E). Three(3)of the six(6)common open space lots (i.e. Lot 6, Block 2 and Lots 1 &5,Block 3) are open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet(s.f.) in area and qualify toward the minimum standards. Lot 1,Block 1 does not qualify; however,if the sidewalk is detached in this lot and an 8-foot wide landscaped parkway is provided,it would qualify per UDC 11-3G- 3B.4. Although Lot 15,Block 1 and Lot 11,Block 2 meet most of the quality standards for open space areas listed in UDC 11-3G-3A,these areas do not demonstrate integration into the development as a priority and appear to be"leftover"areas that aren't developable as building lots and don't meet the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.Lot 15,Block 1 could qualify toward the open space requirement if an additional 70 s.f.is added to the lot in accord with UDC 11-3G- 3B.Ia.Lot 11,Block 2 could qualify if 715 s.f.is added to the common lot in accord with UDC 11- 3G-3B.1a; or,a community garden could be added to the existing lot in accord with UDC 11-3G- 3B.1; or, a minimum 20' x 20' plaza could be added to the existing lot,including hardscape, seating,lighting in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.1. The plans should be revised as recommended by Staff to meet the minimum qualified open space standards. Based on the area of the plat, a minimum of one(1)point of site amenity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-4B. The Applicant proposes amenities consisting of a dog waste station on Lot 15, Block 1 and a picnic area with a shelter and table and bench seating on Lot 6,Block 2,totaling 2.5 points, exceeding the minimum standard. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a multi-use pathway across this site connecting from the pathway along N. Conle Ave. at the south bound=to the pathwa alon Rogue River at the north boundary. in accoru wifn Me Plan,a TO-foof wi a mu -use parnways ou a proviaea witnim 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement; only a 5-foot wide sidewalk is proposed. Staff recommends the plat is revised to include a minimum 20-foot wide common lot to the south of Lot 1,Block 2 to provide a pathway connection from the existing pathway on the east side of Conley Ave.to the south to the common area on Lot 6,Block 2. This will be safer than running the pathway along the front of the building lots along Conley and Eagle View. Staff further recommends the multi-use pathway be extended through the common area on Lot 1,Block 3 and Lot 2,Block 3 and connect to the existing pathway to the north.The landscape plan should be revised to include this pathway and an ease ent should be submitted and rq&g&&d prior to the City F,nuineer9 ciunatnre nn the final nlat Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed within the development in accord with UDC standards. Waterways: The Nourse Lateral runs off-site along the northern boundary of the site. Staff did not receive a response from Settler's Irrigation District on whether or not an easement exists on this property for the lateral. If it does, it should be depicted on the plat and no encroachments allowed within the easement area. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 3,Block 3 is required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Page 8 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: Five(5) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like (see Section VIILF). A mix of single-story, single-story with a bonus room and 2-story homes are proposed. All of the floor plans for the proposed elevations depict a width of 40-feet for the homes which will not fit on at least 19 of the proposed lots and meet the required side yard building setbacks of 5 feet on each side—a minimum lot width of 50 feet would be needed in order to accommodate the proposed homes.With 30-foot wide homes,the elevations will be very garage dominated; the narrow lots will also not accomodate very much on- street parking,which is always a concern. Some of these issues should be alleviated with the lot configuration changes recommended by Staff.Prior to the Commission hearing, Staff recommends conceptual elevations are submitted for homes that will fit on all of the proposed lots. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 9 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map A Description for R-8 Zone March 4,2022 All of Lut 4, Block 1. Ja,,nlin Acres Subdivisiopi as filed in B+x,k 59 of Plats at Pages 5829 and 5830, records of Ada County, Idaho, Iocate4 in the Northeast 114 of the Southeast 114 and the Northwest 114 of the Southeast 114 of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly d 4dft,d A$�f#Ilovos: BEGINNING at the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 32 f rom which the 114 oorner common to Sections 32 and 33,TAN., R.1E_,8_M_, bears North 39°39'12"East, 2,657.16 feet; thence on the east-west centerline of said Section 32 coincident with the south boundary Ilne of Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 as filed In Book 99 of Plats at Pages 12772 Through 12774, records of Ada County, Idaho,North 89039'12'East, 903.13 feet to the westerly boundary lino of Delano Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 121 of Plats at Pages 19124 through 19128, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said westerly boundary line the following two(2)courses and distanoes: South 01 b 191061 West, 611.26 feet; South 101107146'West,60.01 feet to the northerly boundary Iine of Champlon Park Subdivision No_3 as filed in Book 93 of Plats at Pages 11149 through 11153,records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said northerly boundary line the following five (5)courses and d Islances: North 63109'48" West, 177.b2 feet; North 70°46'48" West, 121.52 feet; North 78'20'48" West, 160.92 feet; North 66'09'48" West,263.74 feet; B 1,1- L,4,y4 xrcNB — A top €Y � 0 OF % McGK Par 1 of 2 Page 10 North 6:5W48"Vilest, 72.27 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 18, Block 17 of Champion Park Subdivision No.2 as flled in Book 89 of Plats all.Pages 10374 through 10377, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on the northerly boundary line of said Champion Park Subdivision No. 2 the followirkU fuur (4) urrurses wid disiarirus North 6502048" Wort, 38.74 foot; North 53012'48" West, 164.82 feet: North 29045'48" West, 43.31 feet; North 13°05'48" Nest, 107,13 feet to the east-west centerline of said Section 32 coincident Mth the south boundary line of Heritage Subdivision No_2 as filW in Book 23 of Plats at Pages 1452 and 1453, records of Ada l ounly, Idaho; theme on said south boundary line, North 89°54'08' East, 90,32 feet to the to the REAL POINT Of BEGINNING. Containing 8.200 acres,more or less. End of Description. NL LAVO G1rN ,s0 r� 11779 ,A ZZ, Pale 2 of 2 Page 11 N 5ccle: 1"=200' 0 50 100 200 400 BASIS OF BEARINC N69'39'12"E 2657.16' ' HERITACE w a SUB. NO. 2 3 N89^54'08'E ZEBULON HEIGHTS ZEBULON HEIGHTS 90 32' SUB. NO. 2 SUB. NO, 2 C-1/4 77�N89'39'12"E 903.13' �t 1/4. 1754.03' v 5.32 5.33 N13'0548"W Real Point j of Beginning I it 107.13' N29'45'48'W 7/j� m ¢ N w 43.31' s35t Y82, tB.200 ACRES -r;. N65'26'48 CHAMPION PARK QY 72,27' Z SUB. NO. 2 N65'26'48' zo 4w o p a 38.74' 18 +Y662' 4 r y in = N70'46'48"W N63b3 121.52' E. JASMINE LN. EV 516'07'46"W CHAMPION PARK 50.91' SUB. NO. 3 �} �pL LAND rL o t" Z �� g z P:36i6 wSYixE x 21-125 tl"g 21125 Anne,otim Em.tlr �l4 2022 k3&19 vu Exhibit Drawing for Job No. � 9r��2�Pa IDAHQ W�w.EME�osr 21-125 °oy of�° o� SURVEY ecw.�0A°13'°° R-8 ZONE Shee;No, MCC GROUP LLC of 4. Block 1, Jasmine Acres.L—ited In the NEl 4 of the SE1 4&the 0,9-Dote NWl/4 of the SEl/4 of Section 32. TAN.Mr.. B.M.Ado C—ly,Idaho 3/4/7022 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat,Existing Conditions&Phasing Plan(dated: 6/15/22) PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES J L KINGSTOWN SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIUIwwrPur DArA A PORTION OF THE SE OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO ao F � w's c.rLMwinr r¢ "c"_• �M �X'x OWNERNEVEL ER CIV.L EN31NEERI LAIC SURVEYOR LAND PLANNER a�.cr woX.ue I'TC'dV�n'AUP +ca5.+1d w. ».".a"'w= :°rre.4il:a°e °.� �'��aarz x�r". crvn ccxr o verrs Mt.•.ccr m m= LEGENO i®c.m.ra�n.nu..� —...-..—.� reo"own a•Vc uxe �` --- iPmmn BJwXxnR �K f3 mmo >seo'im•eus e°p XMi �- -- l I , B . I �� ' / • "eo�riz xrswr S3� SE E ' �. xxX �XX.• 1.'ii4 i �� �IS�l.-'- ,-2. • � max— •• I � � r,. vl� � I I 4T evlx= �eXn i.� .ram, - is i• " ..,. .r�7EE Page 13 ji 2 ]E =�a ff QFp J"IIIM1M1I / 0 �� 6 r rrK���� E� ,9iia Sr � I•t u. 6/ ;,'r 3 '� � • .re. ITT �gR E i�� ® m a a f � P � _� YMyINeI• i Pi ff 03 Page 14 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 6/16/2022) •nxtirvxxo OWMHLI]EY WEH �`- wueE ux.s °QaO O LM'dSCAPEAA(]iI u I 9LOpCi � • � . � • . � . l r 'r7{l[.L ° -x0.uglWo�'0.E"IlE x'�•o� E F6C.L mV1EW T. 8 O /', 0 • °° ° ° fl 5 vxn recwo N o i tl16F19t]1-ANI5fARM6 REQlllfifllElR5 COMCFAf RAMP iCX EOYLE Z rw-ru.nm.s.ix"mwm � ��.a.y.'i�o�.�.xow•.� mm�_a�rd.. � n ¢ n xa-uxurrw.vxeay.wn aan ��.nu ream�� ��a.r�r�r.�� � 2WJ - 0-07 Page 15 D. Existing Tree Inventory&Plan 4- 7W rromt. V --fr- ZNQ ® LZI 1 1. m9i O MON UQUI�om IMF" Page 16 I ,� I 1PEE NffIGATM)H REflIIfREMENTi !r EEAQLENHYCT. 7 TREE PROTECTION12 NOTE gun o � ga a w e E � o s r � x �n w 3 gi�Nlwn i aE n o� Page 17 E. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 6/16/22) OA7ERMCVELOPER 1ANDWAPEARRCHIITCT I ImDfx I I I �I a /' cart�c,tkns ros ou EEACLE VIEW CT. � 'gJ4 «nano Pa E i�� 2 eye s — � o imue.el wAce..mwom. Nln� I — a z Y nlgmo�cf ui+ulEn oaa mAc[A a;v,n.9fldON; y y w¢ama kv. � Ixa.aes eusmol� 1{\/_TI^��17 [aEER�EJYINIFYUIL9:.aEPun MC 1YA YIMGr WFE xaumAlq«Puld .{`i��"e�r�{ ❑lR�Fxa CPEN b•KE 05w 7 Page 18 m -__ _-_-_- ___-_-_-_-___ ��� E� €C■ C■€ _0IC■ CMEZI ------- -- -------- ----------- -- --------- --- ------- Eml n o---------- FM- �C �I 0 0 x ❑� / Uw -- - --- -- --- o-',,,� — — 00 LO UO MOLD - - - - - - - - - - - - - M COZ �x moo A k O_ ----- — a ILA❑ n ❑ u ❑ -—-—-—-—-— �— —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— 00 -------- -------- A2 h e IT] 1I - �JLJLLI IiI Lull - -- _- Page 20 ,o® - - - - __ — Li NIN 0 - oA � LILI - El ---- - - -- 4 -- - - - - - - - - -- f i=i-L� j ll 11 oill �illi 000. v - __- - - -- Q m �z- ❑ m o-a-, ❑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- F, - -------- "a-- - - - - - -- A2 Page 21 ;=—-.--- -—-—-—-—-—-— ________ _________ _ — — — — — — F1 Y� mm� Jet e-F�-------- ----------- ------ -- —-------------------- ------ -- — — .. — — — — — — �— --- — — a� -- - - - r_T r_T o -- - - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - A3 Page 22 ®® < o00 Y es"e mw � �z9 Ll ° MINM 0lO ------------ - - - - M�m y Y CO fL �z - M-a ❑ " as — ----- El - - - - - ��- - - —-—-—-— — — — — — — L O in ®" T A3 Page 23 0 —_l—.—_---- ----, __— -------- —� Li 0 0 tl�c a�v -- - - - - - - -- C� 0 0I� - - ------ ®®=goo -----_-___--_ —_—_—_—_—_— -_—_—_—__ �o "—- -—-—-—-—- _—_ ----------- _— UWE e¢$ ❑ ° �.rrs -=-------- — ---------------- e °fs3---------- - -- -- - - — - — atld--- -------- — — — — ------------------- ----- A3 Page 24 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Per the discussion in Section VI, Staff recommends the Applicant reconfigure the lots along the north boundary in Phase I so that wider and fewer lots are provided in that area; and the lots in Phase II are reconfigured and lots are added so that lots are smaller and narrower for a better transition to existing abutting properties. Conceptual building elevations should also be submitted for the 40-foot wide lots that fit on the lots. The plat,conceptual elevations and other associated plans shall be revised accordingly& submitted at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing.Conceptual elevaitons and a draft of the revised plat should be submitted to Staff prior to the Commission hearing demonstrating how these changes would affect the overall density and transition to adjacent properties. A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,common open space/site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home on Lot 3,Block 3 shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral,which runs off-site along the northern boundary of this property, if it encroaches on this property. b. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot along the south side of Lot 1,Block 2 for a multi- use pathway connection from Conley Ave. through the common areas on Lot 6,Block 2 and Lot 1,Block 3 to the pathway along the east side of Rogue River Ave. See Park's Department comments &diagram in Section IX.E. d. Increase the size of Lot 15,Block 1 by 70 square feet to meet the qualified open space standard of 5,000 square feet in UDC 11-3G-3B.1a. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway from the existing pathway along N. Conley Ave. at the south boundary to the existing pathway along N. Rogue River Way at the north boundary as required by the Park's Dept. with landscaping along the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. See Park's Department comments&diagram in Section IX.E. b. Provide one(1) 2-inch tree in the front and back yards of all building lots and an additional 109 caliper inches of trees on the site in common areas in accord with the mitigation standards listed Page 25 in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5; or,apply for Alternative Compliance to this standard(see UDC 11-5B-5 for more information). c. Depict a detached sidewalk with an 8-foot wide parkway and landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C on Lot 1,Block 1 in order for the lot to count toward the minimum qualified open space requirement. d. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot along the south side of Lot 1,Block 2 containing a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway connection from Conley Ave. through the common areas on Lot 6,Block 2 and Lot 1,Block 3 to the pathway along the east side of Rogue River Ave. Depict 5- foot wide landscape strips on each side of the pathway planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. e. Increase the size of Lot 15,Block 1 by 70 square feet to meet the qualified open space standard of 5,000 square feet in UDC 11-3G-3B.Ia. f. Lot 11,Block 2 does not meet the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313—the plans should be revised to comply through one of the following options: 1)add 715 s.f.to the common lot in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.1a; or, 2)include a community garden in the common lot; or, 3)include minimum 20' x 20' plaza in the common lot, including hardscape, seating, and lighting in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.1.If the lot is enlarged, the plat shall also be amended accordingly. 4. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Phase 2,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Phase 1, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathway as required by the Park's Department. 6. Submit a detail of the proposed shelter on Lot 6,Block 2 with the final plat application. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sewer must connect to the north through Rogue River Ave and not from the south. This is a different sewer shed. 1.2 Sewer does not need to be provided to and through to parcel to the east. Provide sewer mains to eastern boundary only as needed for development. 1.3 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches 1.4 Dead-End runs of sewer need a slope of 0.60% 1.5 Must include callouts to remove water blow-offs. 1.6 Water main connecting north and south properties must to be 12". 1.7 Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles,etc.) are built within water/sewer easements. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover Page 26 from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. Page 27 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered baclfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciV.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=267776&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy&cr =1 Page 28 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=267942&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity& https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=272212&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=269309&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiu G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=269136&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitE H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=269137&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single- family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 3.42 units per acre is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property. However, the layout of the preliminary plat proposed with the annexation does not provide an adequate transition in lot sizes to abutting properties to the north in Phase I or in Phase II as discussed above in Sections V and VI. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. Page 29 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made to the development plan as recommended. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant revises the development plan to provide a better transition in lot sizes to abutting properties. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability ofsupporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 30 r PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 1, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 S fl 0 5t 2 L)1 )I N ' 3 3061 601 G� 4 j 2-3 W, }� � L ZZE-40 0?_, yr r o 5 f 3q 6 8 46 9 fT DSS, /1/6/�//�=, J� 0LT �51 Q W 1 WI sfFP D/ 10 I YF f '170 V606VA4 11 �� 12 1 Qo E �j 11/ PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 1, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name AZ A01!SeALAAt YA 3 l X _ 6 Z / �Gzll'ez e_�414& 11,141VI, /W I " 3 —)M Ll tN �'w L 4 ' 6 W_ 1_esi+v-7r ( 8 9 424A4�1/ C � S3� nyJL.pt-ri Lr'1C Y1 'JV�F� �Qv%-okia� 13. q N , RA TT_1CCC,LALl AM 14 1 �� �n PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 1, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 30c Wes-i- -�oL_'DvcfJ tT 2 S"/2 /�: �.Sj?"SS= 3 � 37 ' L' n e �c ; a � 3 4 J y 4-76 Jv. 4;rclS6f0 IFv� C ��� I�c ► S r�s ►`ter;��Q 0, ^ 83 16 X, � tv VVd 6 _ 8 Z z�3 Lr -f c� kQ 9 0 TlesAvc- --L /1-, 10 11 lc k 12 c sat', 13 14 w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Bridgetower Multi-family (H-2022-0047) by Alpha Development Group, Located at at S0427438410 on the north side of W. McMillan Rd. between N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way, near the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2022-0047 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district,. E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 9/01/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission F*FA FROAM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner PEE 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0047 Bridgetower Multi-family CUP uP LOCATION: The site is located at L S0427438410 on the north side of W. McMillan Road between N. San Vito Way and N.Vicenza Way,near the northwest comer of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road,in the SE 1/4 of Section 27,Township 4N,Range 1W. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district,by Alpha Development Group. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 16.61 acres(R-15 zoning district) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) One(1)multi-family residential building lot Number of Residential Units(type 235 multi-family units— 14 two-story buildings and one(1)3- of units) story building. Density Gross— 14.16 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 6.78 acres(295,401 s.f.)of qualified open space proposed [%]ibuffer/qualified) according to open space exhibit(approximately 40%). Amenities At a minimum, 13 amenities are proposed—See amenity Exhibit in Section V11 below. Neighborhood Meeting date May 23,2022 History(previous approvals) CPA-08-003 (Comp Plan Map Amendment to change property to Mixed-Use Community);H-2019-0001 (Summerwood MDA,DA Inst.#2019-055407);A-2020-0162(PBA);H-2020- Page 1 Description Details Page 0108(MDA,PP,RZ—Commission recommended denial, application was withdrawn);H-2021-0094(MDA; Council denied MDA request). Public Comments As of publication of this staff report on the morning of August 26',there were 24 entries of public testimony.Please see record here to review in detail. In general,the neighboring community is against the proposed multi-family project and cites additional traffic concerns,over-crowding at the local elementary school (Pleasant View),and a general desire not to have multi- family residential near their homes. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via driveway connections to existing Hwy/Local)(Existing and collector roadways(San Vito Way&Vicenza Way)—two Proposed) along the east boundary,and one along the west boundary. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Interconnectivity is proposed through the site via multi- Access family drive aisles;no new public roads are proposed or required with this development. Existing Road Network All abutting public roads are existing. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Adjacent collector and arterial roadways have existing Buffers buffers and detached sidewalks. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD,per traffic study analysis,is requiring a westbound right-turn lane onto Vicenza Way on W.McMillan Road.No other road improvements are proposed or required by ACHD. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Approximately 0.5 miles to Heroes Park to the northeast on size) the east side of Ten Mile Road. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#5 - • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Wastewater No issues noted. Water No issues noted. Page 2 1 1 1 Y IIII II11111Y • ........... i2M •'IIII ': I � - __ IIIIn.�__a _� ��:■n �_ I - � ., ..J �N..••.••... _ i iiiii ::mh �� ii�1111 1l-` �� Jun[►4,- I +�=lllr _ IIIIIII■Al Alllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII lu n111n F rE p■■tet■nub 9F- ,i • m ny ■■■1 a11/ € I 1 Y■y r nu nn■I - r ^k F I_Ill'll � - ai p�,...` 1111n�•:IIII InIH• I�:ll+��_ � 11111111 •.. ..I .•.::: �.1111 - ..III ■■I■I■•■■ a ,Illadf '°T■► 11111■ `f► IY1J iiiii:::�_ OIIIOI 'All■ftJ is:]o■C �'. '� 1�1 II. • J�iiil -_nnnnl•I � ll°■°■ar'u �e �, uY� 11 11 II 1••I ■■n■■m .I I117A,►a II IIIIIIIIYI ■■■■ry1a11• @p1A11 LU MCMIf_LA - • - • ' m MCA N f I - - ■r■1` n1 1 b - m IF 1 a.hf _I unAl,Inn a_. E 111111111 1 tlllllllr _ ■ I1111 1 Illlllr IIII• IIIFf (p111F -. - - � ■ uul•l n14 - m u�VJ ILIA - • - _A1-_ ��'n1I1n11Du rllll • -111 aifn eA r _ � W'I Y "•lFnT1U ' m D rl� + 1 A _Illln_• (IIIIIII_\pyi�r V3, �i numnly�I f I�a nllll iiiiiilllll : :��T '�--- -Ldlj irigmlll IIIOII 1 Illllllri - I.9n11 1 Illllllri �1 11 111� , it 11 11���jEI_A■_ ■ � • - • • • Al1III111i • � • - • • • n1III1111-�� •?_�. -- nnlmn■ IIIu n111 --■111 Ir11u n111 -=r -"■111 - om uul Gi ally u■■■■um :::ert' ,� �� IIII 11111 11111•- II Iu MM IAAIAI IIIIIAl11111111111(IIIIIII•: Im■nInIE IIFIFIr11. IIIIII 1 ■ • IY■I IIII �, II■I IIII a 41' " IIIIIII:Y i■IILII 1111�IIII■1 - - III-' \1'llll IIII IIIIII _ `., IA,1111�•�llnnn li;q .-■G-IIIIII a • -• a• I� Ir ■14:IIIIIII- p n■A..` uulQ'1�In nu IL:: nu111• ■�EIn I.•�, nl� . •'. -IAAAAIII •"Ill �n■gi�\'S� 11.1 iiiis::?=':•IA111111 LL III II ' ' mHln■' U 1�11 II nnll■a•� qnE -_ nllnnr 1 ��' � 1 IIIf1a • �=-Oln•11/' �! 7C •4f1a\ ' pJ,,,:11■B� ��:-OIEI•III.•I nn■■nl. -moon. nnunf III .� iniiinil um iunnll n I Innllr�:`_ IN ' m'.:� noon -A I 1 ,'un-_nln�l�- � L w::. nnnm If-■_�:I,I ; : '' • I � 1' - ;AlAll; J L, Illl.a■-�Illllan. II rilal f4• Iinll� c7Y'a Z� _=5 leulnu '. uuE I J .l',n111 ui a Do MCMILL-AN MCh����A,N- - ■�lialllllllll IIIIIII �� 1��.CA'•Ihtlull Ilnm rr a�P� lll��'""yl; n11111 noun um�:. _ ,lum um�_ � --- i■n1l • now, . ►�, , =3_ ullE nuun��r�::-"` �■ =?_� V • _ nnl I uum ---=ull n uum ::__mn■- nn��� uum wD�_un � pm y_ -vmn :�_unn= �� EEE 1•y A•IR■nnr a ��,111 uulllnld%IIIIIII!� - OI _ �_ '5.1: .u.71:]La,.?_]Yaf.AC1� ��-OI ,•n11111 Q -- o g -_IIII II �JI"MiTpI,R, - �•'=_1'1`�I'11 a ..ullrl a++u ► a �nullr I ��■ n 7�rannAE r mnn` � r •a �isnnAl J Ion n nnn � uuu..: nn n nnn � r null;.pnnn°-� � n unH�llll=_ nul;:inulnA- �n unm�nyE _-_IlnumTin= �II nun�� i I� .,C+mmulllrEq -==�I■w--= I 1� nnnw � I I • -I IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 8/17/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 8/11/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 8/10/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 8/11/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. PROPERTY HISTORY&COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: The subject property, approximately 16.6 acres, is part of a larger Mixed-Use Community(MU- C) area that encompasses more area to the north and some area at the southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile—this designation calls for a mix of residential and commercial land uses that are thoughtfully integrated. In addition,the other hard corners surrounding this arterial intersection are noted as commercial and have existing or developing commercial uses. The existing DA includes a concept plan for the overall mixed-use area from 2008 when the property received a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the property from Medium Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community. The current concept plan depicts a large-scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large and small-scale retail, professional and personal services,restaurants, and, specific to this property, an area of residential buildings that were originally intended as assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices. Three public streets abut the subject site on the west, south, and east boundaries that limit access to the site: San Vito Way on the west,McMillan Road(an arterial street) on the south, and Vicenza Way on the east.Vicenza and San Vito are collector streets that do not currently connect north of the site but are planned to connect north of the site and continue to the northeast and connect to Ten Mile,as shown on the Master Street Map. This project is not responsible for the extension of these roads as this property owner does not own the land to the north.In addition, Vicenza Way currently only provides access to the Wal-Mart property that has access to Ten Mile through shared drive aisles whereas San Vito Way is the main access from McMillan to the Bridgetower Subdivision and W. Gondola Drive, a collector street that connects out to N. Black Cat west of the subject site. Because of the existing conditions and the desires of neighbors,the submitted site plan depicts two access points to Vicenza Way to the east and one access point to San Vito Way to the west. Overall,these connection points and the internal drive aisle layout shown on the site plan show adequate circulation for the site and the two south access points, one to each adjacent collector street,provide a connection between parcels that should help capture nearby vehicle trips to and from the commercial area at the northwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile and minimize the need to access the arterial street network. Because this mixed-use area is not yet developed and the site is already zoned for residential uses (R-15 zoning district), Staff finds the proposed development helps this area comply with some mixed-use policies when incorporated into the remaining mixed-use area and the nearby commercial uses in the adjacent commercial designation. At a minimum, Staff finds the proposed development helps meet these specific mixed-use policies: Page 4 • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. • A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone. Based on the analysis above, Staff finds the proposed plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area in regard to land use,density and transportation. Specific code analysis is below. B. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE(UDC)ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit(CUP)—Multi-family Development(UDC 11-4-3-2 Specific Use Standards: A. Purpose. 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe,attractive,and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings,and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design. 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. Based on the submitted Site Plan, this requirement appears to be met. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The Applicant shall comply with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed Page 5 yards.Landscaping,entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The submitted elevations do not clearly depict compliance with this standard but do show patios and decks for each unit.In addition,floor plans were submitted as an additional means of verification and Stafffinds the proposed units do comply with this standard. Staff will verify compliance with this requirement with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application; the Applicant is required to comply with this requirement or obtain Alternative Compliance. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas,and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. None of these areas were used towards the common open space calculation. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title.See the parking section in the general analysis below. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. C. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The Applicant is proposing more than 20 units (235 units) so the Applicant is required to provide the items above in compliance with this standard. The submitted Site Plan does not depict a maintenance storage area but all other requirements are depicted. The Applicant should revise the site plan to show the maintenance storage area with the future CZC application. C. Common open space design requirements. 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten (10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. The multi family area is greater than 5 acres in size, approximately 16.6 acres. According to the submitted open space exhibit, the Applicant is proposing approximately 6.7 acres of qualified open space for the project, well in excess of code requirements. See the open space section below for more specific analysis. 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; Page 6 (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. Staff finds the proposed open space complies with these standards by providing open space that is well connected, highly visible, and promotes health and well-being by supporting a range of leisure and play activities with the proposed amenities and general design of the open space. 3. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one(1)common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000)square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards,if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans depict compliance with this standard in multiple places throughout the site. 4. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500)square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Per the submitted open space exhibit and landscape plans, Staff finds the project to be in compliance with this standard by providing approximately 6.8 acres of qualified open space which equates to approximately 40%of the property to be open space. The submitted open space exhibit depicts the qualified open space. According to the submitted plans, the three largest areas of open space are located at the southeast corner of the site, the central open space area, and along the north boundary. The Page 7 open space in the southeast corner of the site consists of the proposed swimming pool and a large open space area with trees and micro paths totaling approximately 1.5 acres not including the McMillan street buffer. The central open space is approximately an acre in size and includes a number of amenities and a large open field area for a number of recreational activities. The open space area along the north boundary is approximately 0.8 acres in size and includes a fenced dog park and a pathway with fitness stations. 5. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20)feet.Applicant complies. 6. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units.N/A 7. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four (4) feet in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. Some of the open space shown to qualify is adjacent to Vicenza Way,a collector street,and McMillan Road, an arterial street. All of these areas are connected to larger open space areas so Staff finds these areas should be allowed to count through the conditional use permit process. D. Site development amenities. 1. All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches,landscaping and a structure for shade. c. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. Page 8 (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multifamily development as follows: a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2) amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multifamily development between twenty (20) and seventy-five (75) units, three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one (1) from each category. c. For multifamily development with seventy-five (75) units or more, four (4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one (1)from each category. d. For multifamily developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection (D), provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. For the 235 multi family units proposed, a minimum of four(4)amenities, one from each category,should be provided to satisfy the specific use standards and Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to require more through this process. According to the submitted plans, 13 qualifying amenities are proposed with multiple amenities from each category exceeding this requirement.See snip below from the Applicant's amenity exhibit: AMENITY TABLE AMENITY TYPE AMENITY PROVIDED CLUBHOUSE FITNESS FACILITY QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES DOG PARK WITH WASTE STATION COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR KITCHEN FITNESS COURSE PLAZA OPEN SPACE AMENITIES PICNIC AREA WITH TABLES,BENCHES, LANDSCAPING AND SHADE POOL WALKING TRAILS RECREATION AMENITIES CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE SPORTS COURT BIKE REPAIR STATION MULTI-MODAL AMENITIES CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES Page 9 E. Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3) feet wide. b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is showing compliance with this standard. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. Applicant shall comply with this requirement and provide said document at the time of CZC submittal. Code Analysis— Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2A1: The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district and those within the specific use standards for Multi- family Development discussed above(UDC 11-4-3-27). The submitted plans show compliance with all dimensional and specific use standards, including but not limited to, building height, setbacks, accesses, and parking count. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Public road access for this development is proposed via three(3)driveway connections to the adjacent collector streets to the east and west; no access is proposed or allowed to McMillan Road. ACHD has reviewed the proposed development and the submitted Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and has approved the proposed road connections and layout. According to the submitted TIS, this development is estimated to generate an additional 1,788 vehicle trips per day and 148 trips in the PMpeak hour.ACHD has stated within their staff report that McMillan is operating at a level of service `E"or better during the PMpeak hour and the additional PMpeak hour trips generated by this development still allows McMillan to operate at an acceptable level of service. Note that ACHD has not obtained traffic counts since 2018 for this corridor of McMillan Road. In addition, the TIS indicated that a dedicated westbound right-turn line from McMillan onto Vicenza Way is warranted under the future 2025 traffic conditions;ACHD has required this turn lane be constructed with the project per the TIS findings.ACHD has not required any additional road improvements for this project. Staff agrees that this turn lane is necessary but has concerns with the timing of this improvement as the additional right-of-way required to construct it will require land that this owner does not own; the turn lane would need to take land currently owned by Wal-Mart. Despite Staffs general support of the project, it is well documented that McMillan Road is a constrained corridor due to the large irrigation facility and power poles along its southern edge. McMillan is planned in the CIP to be reconstructed as a 3-lane (two lanes in each direction plus Page 10 a center turn lane)arterial in the 2031-2035 time range. Even at this full-build out in approximately 10 years, any additional traffic added to this corridor of McMillan is concerning for both vehicular and pedestrian safety. Because the City does not own and operate our public roads, Staff cannot require additional improvements to the adjacent public streets. Furthermore, this property owner does not own the property to the north that will extend the collector streets northeast to Ten Mile which will create additional options to traversing this area. In order to help the flow of traffic in this area and further minimize trips along McMillan, Staff recommends adding an additional connection to San Vito Way in the northwest corner of the property. This connection was discussed and proposed with previous applications and Staff fully supports its inclusion as it will allow for cross-access between this multi family site and the commercially zoned property directly to the north. Further, this cross-access will assist this property and the property to the north to better comply with the mixed-use policies and vision within the Comprehensive Plan, reduce the number of access points to this collector street by having a shared access, and it will offer pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial that is required by City code. This Applicant does not own the property to the north where this connection should occur at the Gondola and San Vito intersection so this Applicant must work with that adjacent property owner to get permission to construct this additional access OR, at a minimum,stub a connection to the shared boundary so the City can require its extension when the commercial property develops in the future. See snip below for the example from previous applications: ■ Road Improvements: In accord with the submitted TIS,ACHD is requiring the Applicant construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane from McMillan Road onto Vicenza Way. When the commercially zoned area north of this property develops in the future, additional road improvements along McMillan may be required for that developer.However, at this time,no other improvements are required by ACHD for the McMillan Road corridor adjacent to this development. See the ACHD staff report in Section VIII.C. Off-street Parking(UDC 11-3C-0- Off street parking for multi-family developments is required to be provided per the table in UDC 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The Applicant is proposing 235 units consisting of 26 studios, 131 1-bedroom units, 52 2-bedroom units, and 26 3-bedroom units. Based on the total number of units proposed and the bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 403 parking spaces, with a minimum of 209 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport.According to the submitted site plan, the Applicant is proposing 462 spaces with 235 of these spaces to be covered by a carport or located within a garage. The proposed parking Page 11 exceeds minimum code requirements by 59 spaces. Based on the site design and building distribution, Staff supports the proposed parking number and locations except for the seven (7) spaces shown along the south side of the central open space between two buildings; Staff recommends dispersing these spaces to other areas of the site per the recommendations in the next section. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17) and Pathways: Detached sidewalks are existing along all three(3) adjacent public roads, San Vito,Vicenza,and McMillan. The Applicant is also proposing sidewalks and pathways throughout the development. However, it does not appear these sidewalks are at least 5 feet in width as required by code. In addition,there is also a new segment of regional multi-use pathway required along the north and east boundaries of the site that should connect to the existing detached sidewalk along McMillan Road,per the Meridian Pathways conditions of approval. As noted above, it appears the internal sidewalks are 4 feet wide instead of 5 feet wide. Staff is recommending all of these are revised and shown as 5-feet wide with the future CZC application. In addition, the submitted plans depict the required multi-use pathway along the east boundary but not along the north boundary nor shows a connection to the existing detached sidewalk along McMillan, as required by Parks. The Applicant should revise all plans to show this 5-foot sidewalk as 10 foot and add a connection to the McMillan sidewalk with the future CZC application. The drive aisle near the south end of the site connecting San Vito Way to Vicenza Way separates the townhome style product from the 3-story internally accessed apartment building. Staff has noted to the Applicant that some form of traffic calming should occur along this drive aisle to help with pedestrian safety; as currently proposed, Staff believe this drive aisle to be an unsafe area for residents to cross to access the amenities and open space located in the center of the development or the arterial sidewalk along McMillan. 44 -J For this reason, Staff is recommending revisions to this area of the site plan to help make this area safer: 1. Rotate the two center buildings that take access from this drive aisle 90 degrees to have their driveway accesses to the east and west instead; 2. Relocate the 7 off-street parking stalls in this area to remove back-out parking altogether; 3. Show at least two bulb-outs on this drive aisle to help choke this drive aisle for traffic calming with one of them being located where the north-south pedestrian facility is shown from the center of the site to the stacked building; a. Make this crossing with different material per UDC 11-3A-19B.4 (i.e. brick,pavers, stamped/colored concrete) and with a table-top speed bump consistent with Fire department standards. Page 12 4. Staff would prefer the west north-south drive aisle align with one of the drive aisle entrances for the parking lot in the southwest corner of the property. Staff finds that with these revisions to the siteplan, overall vehicular andpedestrian safety will be increased for this development. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B1: Because there are three existing and completed public roadways adjacent to the site,the required landscape buffers along each road are already constructed.Any development of the subject site must protect and maintain these buffers. Per UDC 11-3B-8,at least 5-feet of landscaping is required along the perimeter of vehicle use areas(i.e. drive aisles)and landscaping is also required along the base of the multi-family building elevations facing any public street. According to the submitted landscape plans, all required landscaping appears to be shown except for additional trees along the multi-use pathway segment that should be along the north boundary(required to be shown on future plans). The Applicant should add the required trees adjacent to this pathway along the north boundary when the plans are revised to include this additional pathway segment. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A-7)• All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. No new fencing is shown in the legend of the landscape plans but new fencing is depicted near the northeast corner of the site for the proposed dog park. The Applicant should correct the plans to depict the type of fencing proposed for the dog park area and to ensure compliance with UDC 11-3A-7. Any existing fencing is noted to be protected and remain on the site. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted for Administrative Design Review approval with the subject CUP application; an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance will be required to be submitted for this entire development prior to building permit submittal. Staff has analyzed the submitted building elevations against the Architectural Standards Manual and finds the submitted elevations to be generally compliant. Staff is recommending specific revisions to be submitted with the future CZC application showing compliance with the following standards: 1. R1.2A, 3.2D, &5.2A—add additional color combinations or materials; 2. R3.4A—extend the roof overhangs or apply for a Design Standard Exception; 3. R5.2D—Comply; add qualifying masonry material along the base of the multi Alex buildings; VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the of the requested Conditional Use Permit per the conditions of approval included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(NOT APPROVED) r--- ----------------------------'- , 1 F 1-4 r - — 1 c� I s }1 C -r - --�- t aN z ggg Ci BRIDGETOWER APARTMENTS MERIDIAN,I➢AHO *US. j _ �\ � rncmrrumr.nm s,m�rs�Nrr�r z SITE PLAN Page 14 LE(i- -------------- �� � ---- - 11 l I I 7 i i 1r J 1 I - �' OI-IIACET.-LITIONS i IF I� u I i 4 i 1 NJ J� 5 Page 15 �_ Ltuxtvu I 1 PA RKING TA Bl1LAllONS' L7 -LL '-rl� _7_ OPENSPACETABIILA`IONS 1 v JY � x - h x Page 16 B. Landscape Plan v P H- !n I ------------- F41E S.; EF1 1z, It --- ------------------- IBRIDGETOWER APARTMENTS M CS Page 17 r------ ——— ` fir _ %----------------------------- r I I ............... �: / f .w •f ' r I i I I ¢ _ T os�APE Ov Lioi R _r------------------------------------------- I I a« I I I I ^ I I �R =w I � J1P� _ I ll I� m unoscnPEMhrER � — I. I ;; � - LL L P L102 F Page 18 I I I I I c 7 1 1 ��AMT I�DULE E 0 ......... .,D im IF i-A r= 0 El 4. IL �C�DULE (D < to 10 > II < W ....... _7 X of r III "D 1—j ')IF I F DSCAPE A-1 ------------------------------- L104 Page 19 I I, '�� _ 22 Ch f � d � ' w Li - I W MCMIILL wwNoscnae -'----- Puu-+.R�s 0 ilT ` 7,-L105 r p 'S4t _�-- Li _ 0 0 - 6_ �_ . -- -- — o r o O O C.) O 0o °O ° III ICI "LAN RD �w�n�osc�na�e L-`------- P n 6 — I L106 F Page 20 C. Open Space and Amenity Exhibits r -n , IL ' I LL7—y ��� - I - - III •�< �I II I I I � LJ I L� - ,�, �r-- - ---- — -- - - --- - - - I ' @g�"z III m.kk'am 6 I BRIDGETOWER APARTMENTS R�M T T�+ - lH1D1AN 1DAHU -� rNeTMmd^vc.��msc�ve�n+aI?-c Y ° OPEN SPACE PLAN Page 21 AMENITY TABLE AMENITY TYPE AMENITY PROVIDED CLUBHOUSE ------------------- FITNESS FACILITY 'ram J QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES DOG PARK WITH WASTE STATION `2 f COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR KITCHEN `Yf ' FITNESS COURSE JF PLAZA 1 I- -'- OPEN SPACE AMENITIES PICNIC AREA WITH TABLES,BENCHES, 1 _ LANDSCAPING AND SHADE f. POOL _ WALKING TRAILS RECREATION AMENITIES CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE ' SPORTSCOURT r BIKE REPAIR STATION '•I I MULTI-MODAL AMENITIES CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC r VEHICLES IN cl 7.. _ I I y L 4 — I uNa�r ' Gl ; • u m h- LD & soqkrr•r Page 22 ■■■ l ■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■ rl ■I �' ■■■ t ■■■ ■r■ is ■.■ rrs rrs rrr ■ ■■■ ■■■ L.. ■r■ 1'■_._It ■■■ I� ■■■ ��•I� ■■■ ■ ■■N IN nil II i�� ll�Im III 1,1 I In� s Illl�ii b B ■ 411 ■ ■■■ a r rrr rrr ■ ■■■ ■ rrr rrr rrr ■�� ', ■ rrr ■ III 111 r■■ r■r ■rr --......'i"`" lull liiii r rrr ■ son MM" 1 IIson a ■■■ ■rrr 11:■■■■�� III==�I�1� ■�rA. o +� 1iNo o■r n IN 1iiii ■■I ■■■ rrr ■■■ ilH ■ ■■■ �r rrr ■■■burl II iiiiiii iiiiiii iii Q V I Bill III If hill I III III ■■■ I ir�lii illll il!Ifi!IIIIISifI_II rrr rrr ■■� ■■■ ur rr■I I IU l I.Ag ... ■ w■ r■■ r■r ■rr ■ ... . ... no no ..r . ... . ■. r■r r.r ■ ■■■ ■ II!II uoo lo!o IIIIIIPIIIhoiiiolliiiililllllll!! ■■■ ■■■ ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ron �` `_ III E II0■■■■■■m`e Ill so n 'AII iwuiuu,ux.x._ue,ur auxu .�.,w;�„�.xunvnxurw = x��.eEaccm�xreo.nonxoei.n�x ® ® El ff] m m SoUTHrEL—T10N morrm[nttxrtramrsoixc iar.0 r.n,m mrirvr. rn[rnr-11 we 11-11—T nxoan 1. —_ m AN If a di ffi IM FR Z NEST ELEVATION urm.xi..,��rr�.v- "�''E451�GOFFlCE _ _ i..ui�u,xe,x.,,u,xi siuxu KxKx�r� xaw�rn,.ox,�x,r..�nx�, .rxLw �ti s f - =I= '�LII=IJ--i--- -3—NDRTH ELEVATION nuo!o ux.uv........... _nn w.nx rWio-noxt iatx�tu.xisiux� �nwrT,i+rs nr n�oti wx ® a ® m v - T —II I — -f -I-�� IL II II 11-IJ — �'`y ■■ �■ - 4 EAST Er_—TIOV ai xmixuunrwrmavr Page 24 - V GENERAL NOTES-MERIOR ELEVATIONS 9 - �I IN Ml Illllll il'I_ ��' I II L r L �I II I� 11 II 1 T1 III, 7 i •;N '�; U.L� I E1 I Ill gas l 'l 1 iy11U :.5, 5-,� �a 11 ,�I ^�2- "�.� �FcfWatl '•Ihu Fmn'. ��� - - yut ^ I i 1 I I I-emu- -emu m-��o-1 4-- T c Cfi Fnpmtlw Nw�uca- -� � �rn_M1.wr_rc�..ei BID—ER C E❑ — — e I Ti ,.e C_ ❑,. E F PLAN AND ELEVATIONS f-- - (UPDATED) Al I,�Q�.x.o �,,�E.E�. A201 Page 25 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit: 1. Future development of the site shall be substantially compliant with the approved site plan,landscape plan,open space exhibit,amenity exhibit,and building elevations attached in Section VII of this report and shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with the site and the,including but not limited to: CPA-08-003 (Comp Plan Map Amendment to change property to Mixed-Use Community); H-2019- 0001 (Summerwood MDA,DA Inst.#2019-055407); A-2020-0162 (PBA). 2. With the future CZC application,the site plan included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. Show all sidewalks as a minimum 5 feet wide except for those required to be multi-use pathways; b. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the north and east boundaries that connect to the San Vito and Gondola intersection and to the existing arterial sidewalk along McMillan road near the southeast corner of the site;the sidewalk along the south boundary currently shown as 10 feet may be reduced to 5 feet per this condition. c. Show any pedestrian facility that crosses a drive aisle to be constructed in accord with UDC 11-3A-1913.4 (i.e.brick,pavers, stamped/colored concrete). d. Show the required maintenance storage area per the specific use standards(UDC 11-4-3- 27). e. Rotate the two south-center buildings that take access from the southern drive aisle 90 degrees to have their driveway accesses to the east and west instead. f. Relocate the 7 off-street parking stalls along the southern drive aisle to remove back-out parking in this area. g. Show at least two bulb-outs on the south east-west drive aisle to help choke down this drive aisle for traffic calming with one of them being located where the north-south pedestrian facility is shown from the central open space area to the stacked"T"building. h. Realign the west north-south drive aisle with one of the drive aisle entrances for the parking lot in the southwest corner of the property. i. Add an additional driveway connection to N. San Vito Way in alignment with W. Gondola Drive across the southwest corner of the adjacent property(SO427417210) and extend the sidewalk to this intersection in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 and UDC 11-313- 9C.3. If this connection cannot be constructed at this time,Applicant may stub driveway connection to shared property line and provide a cross-access ingress/egress easement at its location for future connectivity. 3. With the future CZC application,the landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the plans to reflect Staff s recommended changes above. b. Add any proposed fencing to the Landscape Plan legend(i.e. fencing proposed for the fenced dog park). Page 26 c. Depict the required street buffers along San Vito Way,Vicenza Way, and McMillan Road regardless of ownership status to ensure compliance with UDC dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2A-7 and to be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7. d. Add the required trees adjacent to the new multi-use pathway segment along the north boundary per UDC 11-3B-12. 4. With the future CZC application,revise the multi-plex elevations to reflect compliance with the required Architectural Standards per the analysis in the Building Elevations section above in Section V: a. Add additional color combinations and materials to comply with R1.2A, 3.2D, & 5.2A; b. Extend the roof overhangs or apply for a Design Standard Exception to comply with R3.4A; c. Add qualifying masonry material along the base of the multi-plex buildings to comply with R5.2D. 5. The Applicant shall submit a revised open space exhibit with the future CZC application that reflects the most up to date site plan,landscape plan, and any staff recommended revisions for the development. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all specific use standards for the proposed use of Multi- family Residential Development(UDC 11-4-3-27). 7. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) approval for any building within this development prior to submittal for any building permits for the. 8. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal,the Applicant shall submit a recorded and legally binding document(s)that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features,per UDC 11-4-3-27F standards. 9. Prior to building permit submittal,a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi- use pathway segments shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 10. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 11. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 13. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 14. Upon completion of the landscape installation,a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 14. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. Page 27 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Two water main valves required on tee at northern most connection to existing water main on N. San Vito Way. 2. A 20'water easement is needed up to fire hydrants and water meters and extending 10' beyond or the maximum distance available. 3. On Sheet C2.1 there is storm drain infrastructure overtop of the waterline. This needs to be relocated. (See comment on sheet C2.1) 4. Sewer/water easement varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft easement,20-25 ft a 40 ft easement.Adjust easements accordingly. 5. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 28 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used,or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, Page 29 cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=229161&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity D. MERIDIAN PATHWAYS COORDINATOR https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=268829&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC fty E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=268838&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=270086&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC fty IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit Findings (UDC 11-5B-6D: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the R-1 S zoning district in which it resides. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. If all conditions of approval are met, Staff finds the proposed site design and use of multi- family residential is harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Community and the requirements of this title when included in the overall MU-C designation area. 3. That the design, construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses directly to the west, Staff finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, so long as the Applicant constructs the buildings as proposed. Page 30 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services because all services are readily available and ACHD has approved the proposed layout and traffic mitigation. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of more residential units, this area of the City is underdeveloped in that it is existing zoning within a mixed-use area planned for residential uses at higher densities than what exists to the west and south. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170,8-30- 2005,eff. 9-15-2005). Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 31 C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) San Vito North4.44 seconds)(one vehicle every period = 13.5 during observation the intersectionVehicles per minute in 2:50 to 4:10 PMTuesday, 8/30/2022Vehicle traffic 811152140722 3.5 3814340 N 6.5>--McMillan East McMillan West--<San Vito South E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SE PTEMBER 1 , 2022 BRIDGETOWER R - ( H - 2022 - 0047 ) ALPHA INTRODUCTION TO ALPHA DEVELOPMENT GROUP Arl w u� THEM ARQ - AXTO o � HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 2 lD�l ""'��� !4■ y 1. `.1 � - � � ii � I�I I�� � �I � �uir� j; i ��'��� . ; -, ��„�� �`` . •,,, _.,���;;'" J ,,;,� - M� :.may:.. —,r� � �`�- ail � r �t I i AS%•its!•roll L U R E 5, L L C CRUSH^CURVE TOPGOLF IDAHO • I - NORTH RANCH F 'r PIONEER BUSINESS PARE{ r } 110 acrt€�f Olf rz,ntrll,it d industrial and 3y+ . hospiLaity +akeHswia Garden • � pty aRMQW TEN MILE Meridian Adapkla�ro ulr• CRO551 NG Merl amct. oFficc.and retail Nampa 4 ICCV PLAZA mulLif Ry VICTORY COMMONS Retail and firx office Treasure Valley Canopy lysis '_ Project A RRI VILLAGE EAGLE VIEW LANDING RECORDS VILLAGE PLEA5ANT VALLEY INDUSTRIAL Aakl ►adulk OFfm,recall and class-AAA muldfamlly housing hospiLiky plwm ed kocluv flid and 6Mlce t for mop:ATD 7rmsre l+oLty�Jiop¢c rxhslte • S HEEL. , ', HEALTH r BALL HEALTH VENTURES io VA ; AH LQU 1 ST MIM--ntain H-1thmr —puny GROUP� HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 4 LAND USE HISTORY : Submitted request for Development Agreement Annexation/Rezone Rezoning and First New Development Modification /CUP/Development Amendment to Agreement to (eventually denied Agreement original DA combine by City Council) i 1. . • im if 11• 11• 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Amendment of Second Amendment Initial Meetings with Submitted 2002 to original DA— city staff/land new concept Comprehensive acquisition plan that Plan follows the concept plan from June 2010. OUP HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 5 MARCH 7 , 2006 - ANNEXATION , REZONE , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Annexation of 312.67 Acres Re-zone from RUT (Ada County Zoning Designation) to C-G, L-O, and R-4 (City of Meridian Zoning Designations) Landowner entered into a Development Agreement and secured a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Meridian. 2j'P 7 {1 27r _ 3�1 .I17119Y N Sfhr'IS r' ` i__ Project Location O30E ag671' Ltr }�y ri l— — �� 126r 91' S�} M 1Y11 I 04 '� IL'P � l" CG 1r4 Y r � By Ir— ZONE A 34 r CC ZONE Y � PCs AUG D A 2005 qI f, -I' I._Q 7m.,E '?' �i 4 MERIOrAN PUBLIC WoqKs DEPT aw WIM fea NC rmwff aw M"grc P4B i« c1 rma�Wrw' Wsw 7asu $arm s�sdsrlr , L-D. L 0 CI 0101RIG1G Ie6eS fik MI! $I+'O iro IT C3 SK% q+6a WC@ uaw "11w s X49s C L �tlt' •— N L' MM r new r is I , ANK o � HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL DECEMBER 29 , 2008 - AMENDMENT OF THE 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , LAND USE MAP Resolution No. 08-640 amended future land use to expand land use designations at the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillian Road. I\� 77 -1 . wry I i r d e T wsn�o�m ii«m.rer Ns:[u.i eiwdObr- ei Meridian Future srFddoeBiemaarinlrtlo�paeia ld Q gia n Future Land Use M ap n .- �HWPH-®W^ tlI� f M'rcetlllae-Crmmm¢y -M'xetl IJse-Vfc�e Nlau haamon[Fan -Wd�N0uez4Rudk S ID[Z IAtd$ RZPa'm!b Ne Menamnpenn Penmen R;aom..rUMaom 2me o, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 7 6Ruup F ' '� _ -�:a•= � : _ ##fit" •rr i1 it'll;' �'t ��. � - _`. :I��. - �- I• - l . �.:..,: IN '�.�1 � ,l 1. •r". 1'a. ,;• _y}_:.. .tea xr•- -r 1t1�' -]� •��� .- 'may' ..'_.,�■.::•-- ... 1_.-' �x.,� � .:-?� _ :��".�- ■ �! ■r ••il hilt �E- _ I: .� ��r"'� JUNE 26 , 2019 - NEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Combined/Terminated four Development Agreements into a single agreement. Removed the following from the development agreement related to the R-15 portion of the land. Merl 0 ve: 9. Remove; Mk UA illg.- ON 4e-S;fa_ShBiL4. ftPrt-aFaML' 41 th a a o- healik Web, } lhi 6RR, the Planning. Incorporated language included in the 2019 Development Agreement Modification. g. Further development its the G, C,L-0 and R-I zones shall comply with the structure and site design standards as set forfi in LJDCf 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the Arobitectural Stanlards Manual. L All future development of the subject property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances In effort at the tittle o development. 41r � o — 410 Maw AL AL x. M „ Na; ,\ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL RECENT EVENTS Alpha Development Group closed on the purchase of 16.61 acres of R-15 zoned property in July of 2021. Submitted Development Agreement Modification to request removal from the current Development Agreement that governs the property. DA Mod request was denied by City Council of February 2, 2022. March 21, 2022 -- Submitted revised concept plan matching June 2010 concept plan for planning and legal department input. To determine if a Development Agreement Modification is required. April 5, 2022 -- City staff confirmed that a DA Mod would not be required. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 10 GROUP JUNE 2010 CONCEPT PLAN & CURRENT CONCEPT PLAN T wl [111u I 1 4 5 _ ° o m 5 6 v`v �' GLu H E 9 e 7 CH 8 I r �{ 13 9 1p 11 12 — 4 . 11 12 ASI +tom r` OFFICE .ITHES r 4-Story m L� o � HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 11 NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT • October 25, 2021 — Original Neighborhood Meeting (required) • November 15, 2021 — Follow-up meeting to address actionable items. • February 2, 2022 — City council denies DA Modification application. • May 23, 2022 — Neighborhood Meeting (required) for new site plan and CUP Application. • June 29, 2022 — Follow-up meeting to address actionable items. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL STACKED FLATS DO �U��■�� ■: -- -- -- a- ��■■■■�I - -- - min■ �������� noun ad■■ ■■ G ■■ 1 i; ■■ GG �•■■- mmn �� • �� G■ ■■ 'a ■■ �■ G non■ noun 1 mum •• - � � mum •• •• nwnu noon , LL SOUTH ELEVATION 1.ell 2 WE LEASING OFFICE TO mow rr ■■ 1 ■� ,, ��'' GG GG =•■• noun �� •■ ■• ■■ ■■ t■■ •c �■ � mina mum 1 �{�II® ��± ■■ I�� ��- ■■ ■■ �r■— ,��1 ■■ ■r r�� ■■ ■■ ��� ��� ■■ Du®■ It{urn nnnn �i i ■■ nnnn ■■ I_■■�� ::: ■ ::: ::: '_ J� lul ■■ Gi {{{{{{II ■■ �■ ■■ ■■ • ■■ i ■GG _�� [I] IIIIIIA GG ;� ��; ii GG = _ Elli 1 �0■ ■■ eel el'e ee: :: Ell - -- i■ ..�_ �_; a u■i■i iai � ■ ■■ ,uu�� .�o■i lee GG 111 1■ I�� MODERN • • PRODUCT SOuTH ELEVATION ■■■ e■n e■e e■n �' ■■■ ■ ■■■ III I■■■ ■■■ ■[■ [[[ ■ ■■■ ■ I� _ � IIII IIIIIIIIIIII uii=ii116111111�I .`�'I 1 II �iq I �i[,1' IYele■■■■■\\ II �� III ■■■ ■■■ ■[' e■r ■■■ ■■■ II uool iiiiii • I�I��I I uim Illlii i IIIIIIIII IIII IIIII i i i i iiiiii j�� IIt loco Ill�lljll to iii � �Im�l7 � s NORTH EL ■ ■- 1 k ] ■ ■■■ ■[■ ■■■ ■■■ :t7 ■■■"' IIII II r�� �i� �i� I ry" ...� �L....�� i tl HIGHLY • 14 ZONING REQUIREMENTS & ACHIEVEMENTS F Allowed/Required Provided Density 15 units/acre *14.16 units/acre Building Height/ Stacked 40' max building height *38' to top of parapet Flats Building Height/Modern 40' max building height *34'6" to top of roof ridge Farmhouse Open Space 3.19 acres *6.78 acres (41% of total site area) Site Development <100 units determined 13 proposed amenities. Amenities by decision making Exceeds city's body requirements Landscaping Requirements Per Chapter 3 UDC Compliance noted in staff report. Parking 416 Required (235 to 462 provided (235 are be covered) covered) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SUMMARY OF PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT CONFORMANCE Project conforms with property's future land use designation and with current development agreement. Project conforms with the city's applicable Unified Development Code. ■ City of Meridian Fire, police and public works departments have reviewed the application with no issues noted. Traffic Impact Study accepted by ACHD. CONDITIONAL ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED WITH PLANNING STAFF Pedestrian and pathway additions and recommendations Building rotation (impacts several site development amenities). Interior vehicular circulation recommendations. Driveway connection to Gondola (this connection was part of site plan with the DA Mod that was denied and is dependent on landowner to the north). Suggested landscaping changes. ■ Exterior elevation changes to meet city's architectural design standards. ■ Site specific conditions of approval as outlined by City of Meridan Public Works. Other general conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. roP HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 16 GROUP OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT I ,,. LEGEND �I I�IIG I r row I I1 C� — Newt --- 1 ------------- ' 'I --- �_— ---__-------`_—,�_�� - - v - I - ---------- ' ----------- __ ________T__.�yxl__+___--fin.c�oxrta vu C _ _ VICENLI WAY _ ® •0 .eo 1-77 `J 1 II P a ;I I 1 o II LJ � Q � I'1 ; II vuxx.0 srmnexniw.0 III II I II I Q II � I o I II I II 11 ' II IY I I I I I I II II 1p I II 91 I II I I II I II II I II I II � I M II OPEN SPACE TABULATIONS: II I, oonwo.sf e.�n F I u Imo I f I II I II c, rl o r coMMOHcxwssx nxew. Iv.�es sv '--- — u ==---- -- --- — ---- -- �< _ ---- � —_ = �_ _� � __— —_ '—_'-------------------0 0_ _ _____—__ _ ____ _____________SAN VITO WAY_____—___—__--__c ��$h�� � I = GRAPHIC HIC SCALD III A III — Imo_ Iq�� ---------- HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 17 CIVIL SITE PLAN EXHIBIT �- II l �'� LEGEND I LOT 3, BLOCK 1 x.varo I I � l 1gt1Mr COLEM AN SUB. \ ___�--_; I----- �''-' g �,✓ I L � _ I��W �,m �s-9xoxrn n...m --------------- I I I I ________________________________ ------- I I -----------------�--- ----- exavf arNw I I — __ I I I IIII) ro9Ne 1ra9r __ I —��-__-�_��� � L'q,N 3 ___ ___ x I r` �f IyY9•NYNYRw '�.•— —/ ��yfY9•NN c� w VICENLA WA V I x� .Sy 159.f� I N'H IIII. U _�\ \ \ � � w • A s=wo I 1 l9 m 1 o w as,murc w, 1 1 01,'m n © ° I I ,o,wu..,..,.,,... b IIWi� ■ II 1 L J I _ �. I I II I• I� e.xn,a nx l I II II�I � II I Q u II II PARKING TABULATIONS: l 101 II;I� II II 1 `.y I{tlu II II y p 11 II l i l wArtRl .,.wexn,v Ib I I;11 Il II ,o,AS ass.Ib 395 I II 11 I II 1 moon O II I� Il II l I ux n9ecwwwe IIII`- Il lIt i �Pls�iws9rtov � ns 1 ��uxn PL o.E'ARx�nlG Dfo®131w1 1 R.C. NO. 1 20 I o ARCEL A -uxlml u,ppeRs[o%RnG wttlsaoa 1 i� ���\. II II Rx rvG N13 A.) pl` I 1 ••DR vfwnx RARxEW OD l L I II ,m STALL o 1SIONS Ux9p s SHEET C2.2 ��•« II I�< I n cARACE oxrvfwnx gMErvswrbs 3oaxlop SHE C2.1 II x. l I I our.n as II III zI II ,muSO9 Rrvf AISLE— 3bD IMFASUR®wo�l9ACEaEcux91 IIIII�Z l l y 1 _ PARCEL �,� ollA�ll a OPEN SPACE TABULATIONS: QI✓•11111 F I II Urv�S�f n yCd9ltqu9F 9RrvA,Ebf II II I`` f I II M 1� 99350 ,I SF 99, A- nsao l auwax I � ® IIII I� I II `o GROSs 93Jtt b3 l _ I � II IIII I ;I 1 vs a99N I49ao l ii l r� aLW li�l l r -------- w I II LOT 1, BLOCK 1� I VICEN ZA SUBD. _ I C <, -- — ------ O _ ---- ---- _ —-— T (R%1,111c s''uJ L------------------------------i------- — --� � LOT 21. BLOCK 2 III (Il III - -_a ='--'--'-- LOr 9 - _________ VICEN ZA SUBDIVISION ail II L.. 3 BLOC" z� - I tl �^ I(IN 9'e II I II ` II I II II II II bcilm WR td61111r1�K Ro \ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 18 1 , , . , o I► ' ,tllo` ,�di��r�;llllulll ° mom w .. tel. _'�` ��1U,; ��al�V'� ■ � � ■� WI[+_. III o7lWllul l - [o ° i4►IIi;IIh oJulWIN, m uuul�ll J ° fro'So=oa ACWOo ONAQO�O=L•tto—toAfL•tto/�'4tL•:�iita����� ° 0 - ° Aw ° MV WA I �, ■, _III 111�- ! ,■���� ;., ° ° 1� ■ `II ---,� ■ ■ I i-J III/ I+` `���1 � - '� � � IIIIIIIIII'_1i11111111!\lam ° • - �III�III, � �„ ° ° •■ II - �I QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITI ES ��_ �°�J53fi�0iC�}[3'1��0�.3A�IYO�A,�O�O}.�,■,aJ-�.�� • - - NVSCAPING AND SHADE . 1