Loading...
2019-07-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 18, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 18, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Lisa Holland, and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Kevin Holmes, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal _______ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X____ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. If everyone would take their seats. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on July 18th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is -- the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? Seal: So moved. Olsen: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of June 20, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Draft Only Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 2 of 98 Perreault: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have one, Item A, approval of minutes for the meeting of June 20th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented? Olsen: So moved. Seal: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and , then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item -- the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and to respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applic ant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a tablet in the back. If you would like to speak, please, sign up on that tablet. If any person here is testifying on behalf of a larger group of neighbors or homeowners association and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given ten minutes. So, if you are interested in foregoing your three minutes to speak on behalf of someone who is speaking for a larger group, then, you will forego your opportunity to speak individually. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss the application and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Millbrae Subdivision (H-2019-0066) by WH Pacific, Located at 4888 and 4920 W. Cherry Ln. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 8.79 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District; and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 41 Building Lots and 5 Common Lots on 8.79 Acres of Land. Perreault: All right. Let's get started. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066. Let's begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 3 of 98 Holmes: Thank you, Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, this first item is the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for the Millbrae Subdivision. This site consists of 8.79 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at the northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat. To the north of this property we have single family homes in the Burlingame Subdivision, which is zoned R-8 and a church, which is zoned L-O. To the south we have another church, which is currently under development, which is zoned R-8. To the east we have single family homes, zoned R-2, and to the west we have rural residential currently zone RUT. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. Though as you can see here the proposed draft that's ongoing for the Comprehensive Plan does designate this property as medium dense residential, which I will speak to a little bit more later. So, the applicant is requesting annexation and zoning the 8.79 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and the preliminary plat consisting of 41 single family residential building lots and five common lots for the development of detached homes at a gross density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre. So, this is slightly higher than the three dwelling units per acre standard, which is associated with the current low density future land use map designation. As such the applicant is requesting a step up in density to the medium dense residential designation. So, the Comprehensive Plan does allow for these step ups in density and the applicant's request meets the required criteria for such a request. In addition, through the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update, this property is already proposed to be changed to medium density designation in the near future. So , since the applicant's request is in line with this potential future change and the density does fit with the surrounding uses, staff is comfortable with this applicant's step up request. So, currently this property has two single family homes and a number of accessory structures on it. The applicant is proposing to remove one of the homes and accessory structures and, then, relocate the other existing home, which is this lot here, within the new subdivision and staff has already reviewed the new location and determined that it is in compliance with R-8 standards. So, in response to the conditions listed in the staff report, the applicant has already provided a revised open space calculation showing 11.9 percent open space. The open water irrigation ponds, to the north of the property here, has been removed from the calculation, because the pond itself is just slightly larger than what is allowed by code and still qualify as open space. But it is proposed to still remain open to residents and it is still designed in other ways to meet the open space requirements. The drainage swales have also been redesigned as shallow seepage beds, which meets the open space requirements and the applicant has agreed to redesign the emergency access here in the south to -- to West Cherry Lane to include landscaping on either side and with that change it does meet the micro pathway requirements, so it can be counted towards open space. Let's see. The applicant has also agreed to construct ten foot wide concrete multi-use pathways and 25 foot landscape buffers along Black Cat and Cherry Lane, which is in the -- does meet the pathways master plan that we have. Amenities for the subdivision also include children's play structure in the middle there. The already mentioned multi-use pathways. A picnic shelter in the middle area and seating area. The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations and examples of the homes that they plan to build and ACHD has already reviewed and approved this development. The only written testimony that we have received is from the applicant's representative Jane Suggs at WH Pacific and she has indicated that she was in agreement with the staff report Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 4 of 98 conditions and has already provided documentation showing compliance or how compliance will be obtained with those conditions. And with that staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and will stand for questions. Perreault: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Suggs: You know, I think I'm going to make this a lot shorter, because you did such a good job. Would you just put up the landscape plan that you had? Yeah. Let's make this quick. My name is Jane Suggs. I work at WH Pacific, 2141 Airport Way. I'm representing the Millbrae Subdivision and Trilogy Development and Kevin just did such a great job of going through the staff support I really appreciate it , because I don't have a whole lot to add. The only thing I might add is that we almost feel like -- because we are surrounded by city limit -- properties that are within the city limits, except for the -- the property that's just to our west, I almost feel like this is an in-fill parcel, because we are surrounded by R-8 and L-O properties. We do appreciate the staff recommending approval of the step up in the Comprehensive Plan designation, especially since it looks like that this particular area will already be considered as medium -density whenever the new Comprehensive Plan comes out. Again, 40 new homes and one home that's already there to be relocated on 8.79 acres. We are providing some standard single family homes. You will notice that on this that we have some -- a little bit smaller lots, but they are in the interior of the site by design and they are also adjacent to open space. We have shown a couple of those houses that you saw in the staff report are for those 40 foot wide lots. Again, featuring that central open space that's very accessible to every homeowner, we will have a play structure and a picnic shelter. We have agreed to redesign our emergency access and you will see that down in the southwest corner. ACHD is only allowing us to have that one access, White Birch Lane, off of Black Cat. You might know or have heard people talk about this is sort of a hard corner, meaning its two arterials and is really hard to put anything else there especially any kind of commercial uses, even though it's on arterials, because of the access, but we can get the one access on White Birch and we will be providing an emergency access onto Cherry Lane. That is going to be landscaped, so that it will be a nice -- not only emergency access, but pedestrian pathway with landscaping on either side of the pavement. It also provides a really nice connection, because I don't know if you realize -- you probably do -- that about a half a mile down the road is the West Meridian -- proposed West Meridian Park, which is a bunch of land that the City of Meridian already owns before you get to McMillan. So, that will be a really nice opportunity to get down using our ten foot pathways along both Black Cat and Cherry Lane. The other thing I can add is that I believe that Millbrae will add much needed housing to Meridian and a couple of different price points and lot sizes and house sizes and I will stand for some questions if you have them. Perreault: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 5 of 98 Holland: Just one question. When you talked to the neighbors about this project in your neighborhood meeting, was there any conversation with the neighbor to the west or any concerns with them on this parcel since it was low density before? Suggs: No, I don't remember having a whole lot of conversation about the density at all. There were some concerns about making sure the pathway didn't allow people to see over the fences like that -- it's really common now for us to put some undulation in the pathways and I think that we might find that this subdivision might be marketed under a different name. We chose Millbrae because it's a town -- it's just outside of Burlingame and there is a Burlingame Subdivision right next door. So, we did stub a street there. We have to do those types of connectivity just in case something redevelops, but I don't recall any specific concern about that. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Approximately how wide is that strip of -- is that common area down the center? Suggs: Well, it looks to be about the same as -- those lots are 40 feet, so it might be a little over 40 feet wide. So, it provides kind of an open play area and enough room to put in the structures. What you're seeing on this landscape plan is -- the dotted lines are -- they originally proposed surface drainage structures. These are the swales, but we have decided to -- so, we can count all of that area in our open space calculation , that we will be putting underground stormwater management in, which is more expensive, but we think it's a -- really a quality addition to the property to -- those likely will be located on the north and the south ends of this. So, there will be some infiltration basins. Perreault: Will you be putting any kind of fencing around the pond or -- Suggs: Our plan right now is not to put fencing around them, but to landscape around it. We don't have a specific design for that. That is a pond that has to go in, because Settlers Irrigation has a rotation schedule that requires us to put our own pond in for irrigation water. We have even got a little bench -- I don't know if you can see the little dot there, but a bench on the -- along the street. We are hoping not to fence that, but to use landscaping and to keep that from being a hazard. If we find out that that's not the case we will have to do something like that. But that was our hope was to not fence that off. Perreault: So, it's not the intention that they will -- that the homeowners will be using it for recreational use? Suggs: No. No. No. In fact, one of the reasons that we sort of changed up our open space calculations and changed the storm drainage was so we could not count that as part of the open space. There is a code requirement that there has to be 25 percent or -- or less of a lot and we don't know exactly how much that surface area is going to actually Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 6 of 98 look like. We haven't gone through that design yet. I mean that's what -- that will happen after we, hopefully, get approved. So, we just wanted to make sure that that could be whatever it needed to be. But it's an engineered structure. It's not necessarily an amenity structure. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Suggs: Thanks. Perreault: Is there anyone here to testify on this application? Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have two that have indicated they would like to testify. The first is a Michael Pearson. Perreault: Please come forward. Mr. Pearson, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Pearson: Sure. My name is Michael Pearson. I'm the senior pastor of the church directly to the north of the development. 1855 North Black Cat Road. I was present at an earlier meeting on this and I would -- I am in favor. I'm not opposed. I would just like to urge that when this development goes ahead -- or if it goes ahead that the City Council take a serious look at putting in a turning lane on North Black Cat Road past -- from the intersection lights to just north of the LDS church. They have a lot of -- we have a lot of buses using that route, also using our parking lot to turn around and wait and this kind of thing and so there are times each week where traffic going north and south are held up by people turning into the two churches and with an additional entrance into the subdivision it's going to create an increase in traffic there and we would just appreciate that. Perreault: Thank you very much. Pearson: Thank you. Way: Madam Mayor, Members of the Commission, William McCuen. McCuen: I have a prepared statement and I also have copies. Perreault: Would you, please, give that to the clerk first and she can provide that to us. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. McCuen: My name is William McCuen. I live at 5120 West Cherry and just for the record I have never talked -- I'm sorry. Is that better? Okay. And just for the record I have never talked to the developer. So, the comments that were made earlier -- I don't know. So, anyway, I'm going to try and make this short and sweet. After reviewing the ACHD service level study and speaking with Ryan Head, the head planner for ACHD, several items need to be altered or removed to make this report accurate. A summary of factual findings are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 7 of 98 as follows: The Black Cat-Cherry intersection will be over maximum capacity when the Burlingame and Millbrae Subdivisions are completed and the houses are sold. This does not include land for auction on Cherry Lane that is coming up in the future or the fact that the road counts were done prior to the completion of St. Luke's hospital. I believe there is 1,500 employees that are going there, plus -- plus the patronage. These modifications to the SLS counts are calculated using the ACHD standards and data. The road and intersection improvements mentioned in this report have been deferred for at least ten years as stated by Ryan Head. There will be no timely road improvements based on the current plan. Unless improvements are made to Black Cat Road north and south of the subdivision entrance, including a center lane, which someone already previously mentioned and at the north and south intersection point of Cherry Lane, the surrounding community -- community will be materially and adversely affected . Because of these overwhelming facts, there will be an appeal to the ACHD service level study as it is written. There is a remedy that would benefit the developer, the future homeowners and the surrounding community. ACHD is willing to entertain doing a developer cooperative, which will allow the necessary road improvements to be done and paid for out of future assessments that the developers in the area will be paying at the time of development. They already have to pay this and by working with ACHD we may be able to get a developer cooperative and get these road improvements done at the same time as the development. The second issue with the Millbrae Subdivision proposal is the timing of the zoning change request. Meridian Comprehensive Plan meeting is August 5th, a very short time from now. It would make sense to wait for the developer -- what develops from the Comprehensive Plan meeting. The surrounding area as -- as it was put was R-4. It was stepped up to R-8 based on a -- based on the idea that this subdivision would be used for 55 and older communities. It was a ploy. That subdivision is owned by foreign real estate investors and ran out of a lawyer's office in Illinois. It's never going to happen. So, that's why the step up happened on the east side of me. I encouraged -- I encouraged the committee to spend the time to explore our options regarding doing a developer cooperative to get the road improvements completed at the time of the project . The property owners of this project want a new Comprehensive Plan for our great City of Meridian. Let's do it right and make it happen. Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on this application? None? Okay. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward and address -- address this again? Suggs: Thank you, Commissioners. Again, Jane Suggs. W H Pacific representing Millbrae. I don't have a lot to add, because a lot of the discussion from the two spokespeople was about ACHD, things that you really can't do a whole lot about and, unfortunately, things that we can't do a lot about. We have gone through the ACHD process. They have written a staff report. They do approve of the entrance that we are showing. They did not ask for any additional improvements, other than we are dedicating right of way. So, part of what -- to make those rights of ways work for future improvements we are having to dedicate that as part of our process. The turn lane would be something that would come if ACHD says it is -- it qualifies for that and that's not something that we generally do ahead of time, trying to put in a turn lane just in case, it would come when Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 8 of 98 the traffic requires that and right now it doesn't look like that that's the case. You know, every time we build a house in Meridian we do pay impact fees to ACHD, so those are the types of kind of developer cooperatives that actually pay for improvements and we do that -- they are the most expensive impact fees in the county I think right now, but that is the way to do that. This is 41 acres and I don't -- 41 acres -- 41 homes and not probably one of those tipping-point type subdivisions. Certainly will have an impact on traffic, but not to the point where it can afford, actually, with those number of units to make an intersection improvement. But certainly we will cooperate in any way we can with ACHD to make sure that if there are some requirements along -- in the right of way that we feel like that they feel like we need to pay for, we will do that. But at this point they had not requested those things. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Suggs: Can I just ask again to -- very respectfully that you approve our annexation and our subdivision. Thank you very much. Perreault: Okay. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move to close the public hearing on Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Who would like to start our conversation? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Question for staff. I see that it looks like there is a -- maybe a proposed roundabout for the corner of Black Cat and Cherry Lane. I don't know if that's -- that's correct from your knowledge. If you can shed any light on what you know of what the traffic improvements are planned for for that intersection -- do you have any insights from what ACHD has said? Holmes: My understanding that they -- they use that roundabout indicator as a placeholder. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 9 of 98 Holland: Sure. Holmes: It's not an actual -- there is no plan for a roundabout there and as far as I'm aware there is no plans in the works for any improvements on that intersection or that area from ACHD. Holland: Thanks. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I think all in all that hard corner -- it is, you know, continuing with -- it seems like there is a lot of that lately, what -- what fits and what doesn't and what should be on a hard corner given sometimes right-in, right-out. So, I think this is -- this is a good use. It looks like it's a good rural development. I will say that I was opposed to the step up on the subdivision to the west from R-4 to R-8. Likewise, I'm opposed to the step up here from R-4 to R-8. I think -- I think it could be done R-4. The argument -- it's kind of difficult to make that argument now with the R-8 to the west, but, then, we are getting -- we are all just to the west of that, it -- it never looked like a good transition to me, plus we are starting to get out so far to the edge of town that I think this is where we need to be looking at -- at where we have a role. We don't have the -- we are not operating off the -- the new future land use map. We are operating under the current. I think we need to take that into consideration. So, in my mind there is -- there is nothing inherently that I dislike about this, other than I'm opposed to the step up. Perreault: Thank you. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I don't quite understand this develop -- the developer cooperative. Is that something that is within our purview to understand and -- and discuss? Perreault: No. I think that is something that ACHD handles in their entirety. I don't think it -- it really is anything that we need to comment on necessarily. So, as the applicant mentioned, we -- you know, we do get reports from ACHD when -- when it's required on each application and review those as part of our decision, but we don't have any purview regarding roads and road improvements. If the application creates enough of a traffic issue, then, ACHD will recommend those kind of road improvements and -- so, it's not really up to our commission. Olsen: Okay. Perreault: Is that what you are asking? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 10 of 98 Olsen: That's what I'm asking. Perreault: Okay. I appreciate the -- the gentleman who testified and the research that he did on this for sure, but if ACHD makes their determination, then, it's not something we typically will comment on, unless it specifically affects our decision. Olsen: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, just pulling open some agency comments from ACHD and it says the intersection of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane is listed in the CIP to be widened to five lanes on the north leg, six lanes on the south, five lanes east and four lanes on the west leg and signalized between 2021 and 2025. So, just wanted to add that in, since that was a question I had asked earlier. Perreault: Thank you. Appreciate that very much. Hood: Madam Chair? Just for a second, if you don't mind, I can -- I can explain the developer cooperative at ACHD a little bit more. Everything you just said is accurate, but, essentially, what it is is a tool at ACHD where a developer wants to come in and make roadway improvements ahead of when ACHD has them scheduled. They get reimbursed, then, for those upfront costs that the developer puts out by not having to pay their impact fees on the homes or the commercial products. So, basically, they get paid back as they develop out the project. So, everything you said was correct, but that's what a developer cooperative is at ACHD. Olsen: Thank you. Perreault: Thanks very much for clarifying that. Question on that then. Caleb, would they not need the -- if they wanted to -- to make improvements on a stretch of road that fronted multiple properties, they would need cooperation from all of those -- all of those property owners? Hood: So, Madam Chair, Commissioners, part of that process is obtaining the right-of- way necessary. Perreault: Okay. Hood: So, you don't necessarily need them to participate , but you would need the land underneath the road and the sidewalk and the curb-gutter that's going in. So, that is part of the equation. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any additional comments from the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 11 of 98 Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I do agree with the -- what was said earlier about the -- the step up. I mean there is -- wishing to be -- things are going in that direction where the -- where people are asking for more and not less and we are pushing out into a pretty rural area out there and the second thing that I have a concern about, after hearing testimony from the irrigation district about how they would rather have things kept, covered, basically everything that they have just for safety reasons, I have some concerns over having the pond open and exposed without any kind of fencing around it. So, personally, I would like to see something done to increase the safety of that by having some kind of fencing done around it or something that's going to, you know, prevent kids from getting in there and -- and different things like that. It -- it's interesting that this was the approach that was taken on it, because it does expose an open waterway for -- that in my opinion needs to be fenced. Perreault: I did ask that question of staff and we can request that of the applicant in our motion, so -- Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: Okay. Commissioner Holland, did I hear you? Holland: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my only concern is just that there is one access into the neighborhood. It's on a section of road that's the -- the pastor from the church previously mentioned where there is a church turn in and, then, there is another church turn in and, then, there is this -- this lot for this -- this neighborhood that would be another turn in, all with -- before you even get to the quarter mile of the -- the road entrance. So, a little bit of a concern about how that traffic will work having so many different turn-ins. I always like to see where we can have some cross-access when it's possible. It's not ideal to join a neighborhood, necessarily, to a church parking lot, but I would have probably liked to have seen the parcel to the west come in with this one of somehow to connect those two neighborhood s -- there would be a second access point to tell help adjust for the traffic. That's one of my concerns. As far as asking for the step up, I actually don't see a huge concern with it, because I think we are -- we have moved far along on the Comprehensive Plan process and within the next few months they are going to be bringing that forward to Council. So, if the applicant decided to hold off on this application for a matter of a couple of months and, then, come back and have medium density housing in the draft future use map, could they reduce the number of -- of lots in the R-8, maybe a few to be a compromise, that might be something we could ask of them to see if they could get a little bit more open space and maybe take out one or two lots to be a little closer to that kind of middle ground perhaps. We don't really have R-6 available for him, but maybe they could kind of get down to that -- that level and that could be a compromise potentially. So, those are my thoughts. But overall I think that the loop is nice. There is a lot of neighborhoods that are developing around that area . I wouldn't call it quite rural, because it's -- it's still right off of the Ten Mile interchange, it's just within Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 12 of 98 a mile of that Ten Mile Road, so it's still pretty quick to get to for a lot of residents. So, I don't see a huge concern with the step up to medium density. Perreault: Thank you. So, I live not far from here and pass through this intersection nearly every day. I agree with Commissioner Holland, but I don't -- I don't think the step up to the R-8 is as much of a concern as far as the density goes . But I am concerned about that entrance and that backing up on -- on Black Cat Road, because it happens to me on a regular basis. So, I -- I understand. What is the distance -- if the staff could tell us, what's the distance from the intersection to that entrance on Black Cat? Do we know? Holmes: Madam Chair, we are just going through the ACHD staff report to get that number for you. Perreault: Okay. So, I will keep -- I will keep sharing my comments. The thing that I have in mind just as far as -- I realize that the -- the new comp plan is showing this as potential medium density residential. However, these corners on these arterials are really critical and the commercial that would have -- that these homes would have access to is Ten Mile and Cherry Lane, which really doesn't have a lot of services. There is a grocery store there and a few other small services and, then, there really isn't any other commercial in this area until you head up kind of towards Ten Mile and Ustick and so I just -- every time we have a hard corner like this I always have a little bit of hesitancy regarding what our future needs are going to be for these surrounding neighborhoods, at the same time realizing that access issues exist because of the distance requirements from the corner to the entrance for commercial development. So, that's -- that's my concern with this is are we taking what is going to be a much needed, you know, future corner for commercial retail services and -- and putting residential in there. Did you figure it out? Holmes: Yes. Madam Chair, in response to your earlier question, the distance is 510 feet from the intersection to the -- Perreault: Five hundred and ten feet? Holmes: Correct. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Quick question for staff. Kevin, do you have a -- do you have an image of how the -- this roadway through this is going to tie into that development to the west? Holmes: Commissioner Cassinelli, we don't have any plans showing how the stub street is eventually going to connect, no. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 13 of 98 Cassinelli: Okay. Holmes: Commissioner Cassinelli, there is a stub street -- let's see. You can see there on -- in Burlingame that does go towards this development. So, it would make sense that the -- the connection will be available. Perreault: Well, we have shared quite a bit of thoughts. Does anybody have a motion they would like to present? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm not quite ready to make a motion yet, but one thing I -- I believe I have seen when looking at the future use map and the draft future use map, you can see that little brown area that's kind of in the left corner of that middle map there and I believe that that's for a mixed-use neighborhood, but I can't remember and maybe staff can help remind me. I think that's where there was an intention of having some of those retail services which could help support some of those neighborhoods, just back to one of your comments. Maybe Caleb or Bill could shed some light on that. Perreault: Are you talking about down in that corner -- Holland: That little brown area. Perreault: Right here? Holland: Yeah. Hood: And, Madam Chair, just to confirm that -- and you can actually see a little bit of that. All those browns look a little bit different color, even in the draft future land use map. We are proposing to leave that. There is the neighborhood center overlay that will be removed. Perreault: Okay. Hood: But it's still mixed use, so it allows some commercial or nonresidential uses in that designation. Perreault: Thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate it. Cassinelli: I think just a mile up to -- at the corner of Black Cat and Franklin, I don't -- I don't have that on the map what that's going to be, but my guess is possibly some commercial up there at the old Kit Kat -- Kit Kat Klub. Perreault: It's not a very big lot, though, so I don't know. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 14 of 98 Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The concern over -- excuse me. I'm ready to make a motion, but is there a shared concern over the fencing with the irrigation or is that -- I'm the lone wolf on that one? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I had that same concern with the fencing. Perreault: Okay. I think it would be wise for the Commission to give some guidance as to what -- what you have in mind as far as fencing. We don't have to give them -- make it very specific, but are you looking for just protection from children accessing it is there going to be a gate? Are they going to -- you know, would we recommend that people can get in and out of there or is it completely closed off from -- from homeowner access? Seal: Since it's not for recreational use I -- you would have to provide access -- a gated access for maintenance, right, but other than that I don't think -- since it's not designated for recreational use I don't think any other gate would be -- would need to be used as -- you know, a four foot fence that allows people to see -- you know, because it could be something that could be done to make it look aesthetically pleasing, obviously, so, then, we wouldn't want to take that away from them. However, just something that's going to keep kids from wandering in there and playing in it, essentially -- Perreault: Okay. Seal: -- and recreating. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I do have a -- to add into that. I got a strong concern about having that fenced as well. I am looking at this map and I'm trying to figure it out. I'm trying to project down the road when that one lot gets developed that this stub street is on that -- on that other subdivision and -- and White Birch are not -- they are not lining up what's going to happen. How -- what's that going to do to -- to somebody that wants to do an in-fill project on that lot, should that ever get developed, you got two lines that don't -- don't match up and they are not going to. It's going to really mess up any future development. If there is something that can be -- if this can be re -- laid out so that that White Birch -- so, that change shifts a lot -- make that street where the -- where that one bend is, something to line up to that, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 15 of 98 as opposed to that other street in the future, because that will give -- I mean it's -- it's -- it's going to tie up access if this is -- assuming this goes through, it's going to tie it back trying to get to Cherry Lane down the road. Without it just -- I don't see those two lining up and we have done probably -- you know, projects have been approved in the past where we come back, you know, ten years down the road, it's like who approved this. These -- these don't line up. It's like two -- two railroad tracks getting put together in opposite directions that miss by a foot. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm kind of feeling some of the same concerns and it's -- it's some of what I have mentioned earlier is that I'm worried about having only one access of where the stu b street is and maybe there is a chance that they could talk with Burlingame -- I think Burlingame's already kind of gone through the approval process, but you can see kind of a shared driveway that came through originally that could have connected in this parcel, but I have got the same concern that this won't connect at some point in the future and I would almost be inclined to reopen the hearing and see if we could continue it until the point where they can talk to that -- that parcel with understanding what their plans would be for future development. It looks like a fairly nice home that's sitting there and I don't know if they have an interest in developing in the future , but that might give us some clarity to -- if that road would ever be connected in the future and it would make me feel a little bit more comfortable moving forward with it if we knew that . Parsons: Madam Chair -- Perreault: Yes. Parsons: -- if I may. This -- this gentleman that testified this evening, he was at the Burlingame hearing as well and testified and I believe, if memory serves me correctly, I believe he's planning a Montessori school there on the back half of that property and he was going to go through the county and -- and do some of that work, so -- Perreault: I'm sorry, planning what? Parsons: He was planning a Montessori school there, a preschool, on the back half of that property. So, if the Commission would like -- I mean he's here, we can certainly reopen up the public hearing, let him testify -- if you're amenable to letting him testify again. Of course, allow the applicant to have the last word and testify as to relocating the road is in their best interest or not and, then, let you deliberate again. But, again, we have somebody here that can let you know what their plans are now and we can at least get that on the record and see if what's proposed next to them works in with his future development of his back parcel. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 16 of 98 Perreault: Thank you. Well, it sounds like there is a proposal to open the public hearing, so can I get a motion? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we reopen the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066 for the purpose of receiving additional testimony from the gentleman that's representing that property to the west of the Millbrae Subdivision and also to hear from the applicant for some follow-up. Seal: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Would the neighboring property owner please come forward. McEwen: And for the record William McEwen. 5120 West Cherry Lane. Perreault: Thank you. Would you like to share your thoughts on our deliberation this evening? McEwen: Yes. Thank you very much. First of all, Ms. Holland, you are correct, that is a mixed-use area right there and absolutely nothing wrong with that. Second, I had talked with ACHD regarding my driveway and the streets that are passing through my property and we have pretty much decided that when that development goes in and when we put our school up, we are willing to vacate our driveway in order to -- in to order -- in order to enhance the traffic flow on Cherry Lane . I mean I'm not up here to -- to say that this project is bad and that -- that is not what I'm up here at all for and as far as the impact on me regarding Black Cat Road, it's pretty minimal. I get up at 5:30 in the morning I come home at 2:30. It's not going to affect me, but I do think it's going to affect the -- the new residence regarding the ingress and egress of that property and as far as us hooking up those two roads together, yeah, we would love to, but the developer never talked to us about it and it would make more sense and better use of our property if we could do so and there is a very good chance that we will develop the back half of our property after we are done doing whatever we want to do regarding our school. Do you have any other questions for me? Perreault: How -- how large is your parcel? McEwen: It's five acres. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 17 of 98 Perreault: Okay. So, you would vacate access from Cherry Lane if you develop this, which means access would be required to come through one of the two subdivisions ; is that right? McEwen: That is correct. Perreault: Okay. McEwen: I mean I don't have to, I just think it's best for the community. That's why I'm here. Perreault: Okay. Any questions? Holland: No. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Do you have any thoughts or comments on this? Suggs: Commissioners, thank you. Jane Suggs representing Millbrae Subdivision. This is sort of a first for me to have the Commission redesign a project, but it is my understanding from the developers that the adjacent Mr. -- Mr. McEwen was not interested in selling his property, so that's why it wasn't included as a parcel in a subdivision. We like the layout that we have right now. We actually do not prefer to try to connect to Burlingame at this point, because, then, you have a straight away that's probably going to be misused as a connection and five acres is plenty of room to kind of come in on the north, come down and -- we do that a lot, in fact, when we are doing our own subdivisions, we don't connect straight across, because we want to make sure that it's a neighborhood, that people aren't speeding from Burlingame Subdivision over into Millbrae with a straight away that's just a house or so off of Cherry Lane. So, I would actually have to go on record as saying that we would prefer to keep our current design and we would be happy to work with the adjacent property owner when he de cides to develop his property. Of course this is a great stub street into the back end of his property instead of to where his house is, as Burlingame kind of stubbed right into his living area instead of the open space in the back, which was part of the design as well. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one comment. I don't mind the -- the way that this project is set up and one maybe suggestion to consider is maybe to avoid that straight away, if you were to move that access to line up with the Burlingame stub street and potentially kind of flip flop what you have on that west side where you do kind of the cul-de-sac on the top and the -- the stub street to the left to connect with that road, perhaps that could be an option to look at. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 18 of 98 Suggs: I'm not following that, unfortunately. Again -- Holland: I wish I could draw that out. Sorry. Suggs: I would -- I would take suggestions, but I would prefer that we kind of consider the application that's here. I mean I really do appreciate it and I appreciate the idea about the fence, I think that's probably a good idea if we -- this will be a body of water that fills up occasionally with water and by the end of the day may drop some, but a four foot fence with some landscaping around it could be very helpful. Tell me again what you're talking about now. Holland: So, my suggestion is if you were to cut the parcel in half just vertically and you took the left side of it and you flipped it upside down, perhaps that would help, because, then, your access point could line up a little bit better with the Burlingame Subdivision next to it. Suggs: So, you're -- I think that's what the neighbor was talking about is putting the Burlingame -- the one on the west side to line up we are trying not to line up, so -- with that. So, where are you talking -- again, you're talking about just taking our stub street from the -- from the north and putting it to the south? Holland: Correct. Suggs: Yeah. And we are saying that we would prefer not to do that, because that would be a straight shot through -- actually through Mr. McEwen's livable area, instead of stubbing into the backside of his property, which is likely to help in actually redevelopment of his property. Holland: I think where I'm at -- and we can talk a little bit more as a Commission -- would be to potentially continue the conversation, so that you could work with staff and -- and with the -- the neighboring property owner to -- to come up with something that might be good for joint access in the future of how those roads would connect through. Suggs: Okay. Again, I appreciate your concern, but this is really -- it's difficult now that -- to try to redesign a project based on someone who hasn't been at the neighborhood meetings or contacted us previously about this, so -- I mean I do appreciate it, but I think that we have a great subdivision here and I think that this is the application that -- I really would appreciate your approval of this, instead of a redesign based on what could happen in the future if that developer -- I mean he is developing his property when he comes in with an application and we are still in process, that would be a good time to chat with him, but, again, we are just not in a position right now to redesign the project tonight to do this and we would appreciate your approval, so we could take our subdivision on up to City Council. Perreault: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 19 of 98 Suggs: Thank you. Perreault: At this time let's get a motion to close the public hearing. Olsen: So moved. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: While the hearing is still open if we did decide to continue the application we would have to have the hearing open for that . So, I don't know if we want to deliberate on whether or not others are interested in continuing the application or whether you want to move forward with the recommendation of approval or denial before we close the public hearing. Perreault: If there is a motion and a second we could do that . I, just for myself, am not in favor of continuing, because I think that if the current property owner is not concerned about where the streets are coming in and it meets all the other approvals, then, there is -- it's not really for us to say that, you know, it will really be his -- his -- unfortunately his challenge when it comes to him developing it with his engineer when the time comes and so if he's not as -- if he's not concerned about it and asking for a change, then, I don't know if we -- if we necessarily need to require that. The other -- the other thought I have is that if there is any kind of use for a Montessori school -- let's say, for example, it is on the backside of the property, having that direct access from Black Cat straight across that north part would be beneficial to him , but I don't know if -- if you -- if you would like to make a motion and there is a second to leave the public hearing open to continue, please, do. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Before I make a motion, can we bring the property owner back up and -- and ask him again. I think he was -- I think what he was saying -- my understanding of what he was saying is that he would take access -- remove his access from Cherry Lane, take access off that road. We still don't have these roads lining up, which means trying to develop that piece of property is going to be that much more difficult . I think we need to address this now and -- and get something that will allow that all to work down the road and not -- not sit there and have them try and come up with something that's impossible. So, I would like to bring him back and ask that question as far as the -- those roads -- the way they are -- the way they are laid out now. Perreault: So, I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. You don't think the way that they are laid out now that that could not be developed and -- and have the road come Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 20 of 98 down and curve and -- and connect, you think they need to be directly across from one another? Cassinelli: If you're going to try and develop that as a -- to -- if that's what the plans are, possibly a Montessori school, it just -- it makes it more difficult. It's going to -- it's going to take up more of that five acres -- well, the whole parcel is five acres, so it's going to take more of -- more of that land to have a road curving around that or doing whatever using a -- you do that or cut the road right through the middle of the school and, then, you got other challenges. So, I -- to me I think you want to leave most of that -- most that parcel intact. So, I just want to find out if -- the way the roads are lined up if you're going to develop that property in the future you have got to get those two roads to -- to meet up somehow, which means it would -- which means a couple of 90 degree turns or something similar and I get that that will -- that will mitigate some of the -- the speeds through there, but, then, that's really going to limit how you develop that land. Perreault: It will. I -- but I don't think it's an impossible thing to get -- I understand what you're saying. I don't see the necessity in having the road directly line up from -- across from each other. Cassinelli: Can we bring up the -- Perreault: Yes. Absolutely. Cassinelli: -- the property owner? Perreault: Is the property owner interested in coming forward? McEwen: William McEwen. 5120 West Cherry Lane. I never said that I wanted that road to go straight through my property. I agree with what the developer said, that it would become a -- a racetrack and it would be definitely detrimental to our Montessori school. On the other hand, sticking that thing in the back of my property is a waste of space. Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Cassinelli. I would love to work with the developer. They wanted to buy my property. I wasn't interested in buying it. That's the last time I heard from them. So, if it -- I would very very much appreciate this council to look at the work that I did in regard to the ACHD report. It says -- the timing on those projects, that was written in 2016. I talked to the head of the planning, he says we are not going to touch that for another ten years all things being equal right now. We can work with ACHD. They can work with me. They can put the -- we can put together a plan that works for everybody and they can have their project. I just don't understand why rush this through and not get the best product we possibly can for the City of Meridian. Perreault: So, are you referring to the -- the left turn lane on Black Cat? Is that what you're referring to? McEwen: I wrote an entire report. I gave copies to somebody. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 21 of 98 Perreault: Yes, I have -- you're talking about the one that was presented here this evening. McEwen: Yeah. Perreault: Yeah. It's my understanding that the intention of the -- your proposal for the intention of developer cooperative was to gather support and funds to put in a left turn lane on Black Cat. Does that -- McEwen: Yes. So, it wouldn't cost the developer anything and we could get the roads that we needed for the church for -- for the development and not back up traffic through that intersection and -- and wait ten years for ACHD to come in and decide that it was time to do that. Perreault: Can you help us understand how that not -- that not happening affects your property currently or if this development goes in how does that affect your property specifically? McEwen: The only thing that the development affects in regards to me is the possibility that they put two story houses with windows going out the back staring into my property, which I'm not too excited about. That's one thing that it affects. I have got a solution for that. The other thing that it affects is my whopping 24 clients that have to go through that intersection and drop their kids off, that affects me and -- and personally when I'm driving around. This project doesn't affect me a whole heck of a lot , other than where they stub that road in. I'm up here because I like this community and I want my neighborhood to be a well-balanced and pleasant place to be, not at a messed-up intersection for the next ten years that you grumble about every time you go through and -- because there is other ways to do this that will work and won't cost anybody anymore money , it will just cost them a little bit of time. Perreault: So, at this point in time you're not concerned about the -- the stub streets from both subdivisions on either side lining up directly. You don't think that will negatively affect your future plans? McEwen: It will not negatively affect my future plans, but as Mr. Cassinelli pointed out, sticking that thing in the very back of my lot doesn't do much for me either. Perreault: Sticking what? I'm sorry, sir. McEwen: Their stub in -- Perreault: Uh-huh. McEwen: -- goes into the very back of my property. Perreault: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 22 of 98 McEwen: Not a good spot. Perreault: Okay. McEwen: And I worked -- I worked with the other developer regarding that stub and the reason it was put there is because it was behind our livable space that we currently have and -- and in the exact area that we wanted to put our school . It worked for them, it worked for us and so it was a good place to stub it in. I'm willing to work with anybody. Perreault: Okay. Okay. McEwen: But they -- you know, got to -- it's got to be mutual, you know. Perreault: Okay. I understand. Any questions? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I do have a question. So, you did not -- you -- you did not talk with them at all about the location of that stub street? McEwen: No. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate you being -- McEwen: Thank you. Perreault: Yes, will be happy to hear from the applicant again. And, then, you will get -- this moving forward. Suggs: Thank you so much. Again, Jane Suggs with W H Pacific for Millbrae. We have to stub a street. That's part of the connectivity requirements we have. We would rather keep the street where it is. It doesn't have to go through. It could be a cul-de-sac that would allow -- and pathways that allow people to access from all over the neighborhood, because we are going to have those ten foot pathways along both Black Cat and Cherry Lane, so it could be a pathway stub. That is the location -- we are taking sewer to that location, so that's where the sewer would come into that property as well. So, we are doing that. I am -- I just kind of very respectfully request that -- you have an application in front of you and to have a neighboring property owner who has not contacted us -- yes, contacted to purchase his property, but no neighborhood meeting attendance and also there are signs -- I mean there is lots of ways to get in touch with us, so if there was a concern with that -- like our neighbor said, it's not detrimental to him. It works for us to have that connection. We do think that if it's lower it will be more of a -- as he says maybe a raceway. I mean it is straight streets. Five acres is plenty of room to put in a curve Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 23 of 98 from the north to the south. In fact, it helps create a little bit of automatic traffic calming and gives a little opportunity if you want to put houses there -- of course, that's sort of what we think. If he wants to put a school there we could do a cul-de-sac. He could do a cul-de-sac and a turn around there. I mean there would be opportunities to do those things. It doesn't have to always go through if that's not what he wants to do. But I really very -- again ask that you take a look at the project that's in front of you and give us an approval for our rezone, including -- and, again, we do appreciate the step up, because we do see that as coming. It will be there and your -- the folks in that area have actually written and participated in the Comprehensive Plan changes that are going on. So, that is one of the reasons -- and, again, with this corner -- rural properties at this corner are not as appropriate as medium density properties . So, thank you again and I can answer any other questions if you have them. Perreault: Questions? Thank you very much. Suggs: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: While it's still open I -- that helped get some more clarity a little bit, but I'm still in the inclination of almost leaning towards continuing it to allow the applicant to have time to talk with that neighboring property owner -- at least to have a conversation. I don't want to belabor it too long. I certainly understand the -- the desire to not change the plat at this point for her -- for the sake of the -- the applicant, because it always changes a lot of things, where sewer comes in, where streets come in, reports, those kind of things. But I do have concerns with where the one access point is coming into the neighborhood , because it's a step up and it's not a -- an R-4 neighborhood, it's an R-8 and there are more homes there. It just always makes me nervous when there is only one access point really into a neighborhood without a plan of how that will connect again in the future. Perreault: Is the Commission okay with the applicant speaking again? Olsen: Yes. Cassinelli: Yes. Perreault: Yes. Okay. Suggs: Thank you. Again, Commissioner Holland, I do appreciate that, because connectivity really is, you know, an important part of what we do when we are building new communities. But that is the only location we can connect on the whole property. That's per ACHD. We can't connect on Cherry and we have connected there. So, that is the only thing -- and we do those stubs with the idea that there will be a connection . There is no guarantee that -- our neighboring property owner has plans, but there is no Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 24 of 98 application in front of you, so there is no guarantee there would be anything. So, we are kind of basically stuck with that one location and that's why we have the emergency access, too. Otherwise, we would be limited to the number of home. So, we have that emergency access, but it is just for emergencies onto Cherry Lane. So, I just wanted to make sure everybody realized that we didn't have a choice , we really can't stub a public street subdivision to a parking lot. This is the only location that they will approve. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. Okay. So, if -- if it's the Commissioners' desire to continue, I would -- I would call for a motion and a second. One thing I would say is I don't see any reason why the two parties couldn't speak before City Council -- the City Council meeting and maybe they could get some of that worked out and submit something different if they decide to do so before City Council. Is that possible? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commission, I was going to chime in on that. So, I -- Jane is correct, the -- ACHD wants their access to Black Cat where it's at. That -- they gave away -- they have given a waiver to that. Typically that -- ACHD's policy is to have accesses 660 feet from the intersections. That's -- but they don't have the ability to do that. So, they were granted a waiver to have it in the location that it's at. Now, the latitude that we have in code is, yes, you can move this forward with a recommendation of either approval or denial with the applicant working with the -- this gentleman and, then, providing the information to the city ten days prior to the City Council hearing. The other options that we have within code is when you go from preliminary plat to final plat the code allows some flexibility that streets can change a little bit as you go through that process. So, if you felt comfortable moving this forward, with the condition that he -- they work with the owner, then, with the final plat the applicant, in agreement with the property owner to the west, could modify that plat and possibly move that road farther to the south to align in a location that's suitable for both parties. So, we have some flexibility in code. Again, if that's something that the Commission feels comfortable with tonight, then, you can certainly include that in a motion and we will make sure that happens as we head onto City Council. Perreault: Thank you very much for that clarification, Bill. Holland: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: My problem with just approving it is that if they -- if they don't come to any sort of an agreement that subdivision could wind up with a stub street forever and never any access to Cherry Lane and, then, who knows. I mean when they come through and -- and -- well, I don't know that ACHD would ever require that to be a right-in, right-out only Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 25 of 98 when they -- when they made improvements to Black Cat to the north. I don't know what ACHD might do then. But to -- to tie up that subdivision and never have access to -- to Cherry I don't think is a good decision and I don't think without the proper input from that landowner in the middle that -- that that will happen and I -- and there is no guarantee that if we just approve it between now and when it goes to City Council that they will sit down and figure out a plan. I think it -- I think the plan has to come before it goes to City Council and come through us. So, I would personally be in favor of continuing it for that reason. I know it -- it brings it back again, it adds one more thing to our plate, but I would rather see it done right. Holland: Madam Chair? The only other comment I was going to -- I could probably move forward with the recommendation that they work together before City Council and be okay with that. The only other concern I have while it's still open is there were several concerns voiced about the step up. If we were to close the public hearing and, then, it came back up the people were opposed to this being an R-8 neighborhood, we should probably talk about that conversation before we decide what we are going to do with continuing it related to the street access point. I know -- I was okay with the -- the step up, but I don't know if we want to rehash that again really quick and see if that's something worth continuing it to, because if -- if that is a concern you might want to give the applicant time to re-look at the application before we denied it, too. So, just throwing that out there. Perreault: Are there any specific concerns regarding the step up? Olsen: No. I'm fine with the step up. Perreault: Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you have any thoughts on that? Seal: I mean mine's not specific to this -- to this development, it is just in general, but -- more or less. But I mean this is involved in that. There is a step up that's going on and that seems to be more the trend than anything and to me that's overall concerning where , you know, at some point in time we are going to want to put the brakes on. So, at what point I don't know, but it is concerning. Perreault: I think there are enough residential communities in that vicinity that -- that -- that this fits in to -- to not be as concerned about it. If this was out and there really were no -- there was really no R-8 nearby or nothing in the plans, then, I would definitely have a concern, but that's not the case in this situation. Cassinelli: I expressed my thoughts on that. Perreault: Absolutely. Okay. So, do you feel like that -- Commissioner Holland, do you feel like that sufficiently answered -- answered your question? Okay. So, I would like to hear Commissioner Olsen and Commissioner Seal's thoughts on the -- the roads and the connectivity concerns if there are any. Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 26 of 98 Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The -- the concern that was expressed with Commissioner Cassinelli about -- I think -- I think that we can guarantee that they -- they meet -- make it a condition of them going to City Council. Basically require that they meet, discuss and document at a minimal agreement for the stub street and make that a condition of them going to City Council. I think that's doable at this point. I mean will it happen? Possibly not, but if they get to City Council without it, then, that doesn't meet the requirements, so -- I mean it's still up to them to take action or not on that , but I think that we can probably -- we can make it a requirement and I can sleep better making it a requirement I guess is how I feel about it. Perreault: So, just want to get the thoughts from staff on that, can we actually require the application and the neighboring property owner to meet prior to City Council? We can actually require that, can we? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, that's something that you can encourage the applicant to bring forth a revised plan consistent with those discussions. Perreault: Encourage it, but not require it? Parsons: Oh, you can still ask them to do that or move it forward with denial. I mean -- Perreault: I'm sorry, would you speak into the microphone. Parsons: I said you can -- you can encourage them to work together and revise a plan. You can make a recommendation that they relocate the stub street to the south. I mean it's -- there is -- there is many options for you to go with, it's just you have to determine if you want to give the applicant and the property owner flexibility to work it out before they get to City Council or as the applicant said, you're going to mandate the design of the relocation of the street. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Olsen, do you have some thoughts to share with us? Olsen: I'm not comfortable with the mandating of the relocation of the street. I'm a little concerned -- and I would like to understand -- again maybe going back to this developer cooperation. Is there any way that -- is there any way that we can give the guidance that there needs to be a discussion with ACHD about this cooperative -- cooperation? Perreault: Well, there is -- there is two different issues. So, the one we are discussing where the stub streets come into this property in the -- in between the two subdivisions and the other one regarding the developer cooperative, the concern was about left turn lanes on Black Cat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 27 of 98 Olsen: Right. Perreault: So, two -- two different things. I was hoping for your thoughts on the stub streets coming into this property in between the two subdivisions and whether there is concern over -- if they need to line up or if we need to continue and have the -- the property owner and the developer discuss that or if we can recommend them to do so prior to City Council. Olsen: I'm fine with him just discussing it before City Council as far as the stub street goes. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: But I would like to see this take place with ACHD and the developer cooperation, if that's something that we have anything to say about. Perreault: You know, I -- I don't -- I feel like that that needs to be something that's either commented on by -- by our attorney or by the staff, because I don't -- I don't feel like I'm in the position to make that just -- you know, to make that decision. I -- we have never had this come before the Commission that I know of. We aren't involved in ACHD's decisions, so if there is any guidance that we can get from the attorneys or from staff I would appreciate that to answer Commissioner Olsen's question. Olsen: Can I clarify my -- my concern? Perreault: Yeah. Absolutely. Olsen: It concerns me that if ACHD has something like this available, okay, and it's not something that's been examined, except by a -- the property owner that isn't involved in the development, I think it's something that should be examined and something that should be looked at by a developer if it's available . Perreault: Are you looking -- are you speaking in regard to this specific application or in general? Olsen: I guess in general. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: In general. Perreault: Okay. So, let's kind of -- we will have that conversation, but let's -- Mr. Parsons, did you want to -- Parsons: I'm happy to chime in, but if you feel like you need clarification just let me know. If you want me to chime in, perfect. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 28 of 98 Perreault: Yeah. Parsons: So, as Caleb mentioned to you, a cooperative -- that's just what it is, a cooperative development agreement. All the parties are coming together and working together. Typically we don't get that type of involvement when we are talking about a project of this size. We are talking about large annexations, master planned communities where there is multiple impacts to that roadway. Again, this is an infill that they are trying to do. We are talking 40 plus lots. So, in my opinion we shouldn't be requiring them to enter into a cooperative development agreement, because we don't even know if the adjacent property owners want to do that or not. We have two people -- we have one gentleman that talked with Ryan Head and did the -- to get what -- some of the requirements that ACHD will do. But, yeah, we -- we typically wouldn't require that as part of the annexation with a project of this size I guess is the long story short. Olsen: Thank you. Parsons: And I just wanted to clarify that -- and if it was something that ACHD's development staff wanted they would have included it in their staff report as well and they did not mention that in their -- they gave you the timing for the widening of the intersection, which is between 2021 and 2025. Olsen: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Holland and Commissioner Cassinelli, still interested in making a motion to continue? Holland: Madam Chair, I would be okay moving to a -- to close the public hearing, but I wanted to give Commissioner Cassinelli a chance to chime in if he would like to make a motion to continue. Cassinelli: Well, thank you for the opportunity. Bill, how are we looking on the -- I guess the 1st and the 15th of August? What's the calendar looking like already? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, currently we have nothing scheduled for August 1st, so we were going to inform you that that more than likely will be canceled, unless you want to move this to that hearing, then, we would have this item. Or the next available is the 15th and that would be fine. Cassinelli: And what's that -- what's the calendar looking like on that day? Parsons: I don't know at this point. I could run a report really quick and let you know how many we have planned at that point. I think there is a couple at this time. Cassinelli: There are a couple? Parsons: A few coming, yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 29 of 98 Cassinelli: Do we want to see if the applicant would be okay with the 15th? Perreault: Does the applicant have any thoughts on those dates? Suggs: I don't have a problem with appearing before, either one of those dates. If -- I kind of don't understand what it is we are trying to accomplish, because, again, you have an application in front of you to approve according to the plans that we feel like the best for the property that is before you and we can talk to the adjacent property owner, but there is no guarantee we would come to any kind of agreement , so I would hope that any condition to continue to speak to the property owner would be that we record that that meeting occurred and that we did our best to figure out what our needs were, but I would not be very amenable I guess -- I guess I would say or I would guess my developer would not be super amenable, because it's not my property, to actually changing something now based on someone's idea of what could happen to their property. Again, there are no applications in front of you for that Montessori school. There is no plan. I haven't seen any plans. So, again, I'm just trying to be realistic that this is a great subdivision in fro nt of you tonight. But if that is your desire we will make sure that that meeting happens and we talk to the neighboring property owner. I wish we had done this a long time ago because we haven't had any indication that there was a concern by the propert y owner. It sounds like to me the property owner is mostly concerned about the intersection , which, again, we have decided is an ACHD kind of issue. Let me just say since I have the floor, if we don't do the step up we are not talking losing a couple of lots, we would be losing 15 lots out of the 41. So, we would only be able to build 26 lots there. And, again, I think right now with our housing needs that that's something -- especially knowing that that's going to be medium density soon that -- that that step up makes sense right now. So, thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I will make a motion to close the public hearing. I was just waiting, because -- Cassinelli: Do we need to -- do we need to continue it in -- in an open session; is that correct? Perreault: If there is going to be a motion to continue, yes. Cassinelli: Then I'm -- Madam Chair, I'm going to jump in and make a motion to continue the Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066, to the date of August 15th to give the applicant time to sit down with the neighboring property owner, as well as potentially even with the owner of Burlingame, to come up with a -- a little bit better plan to match the two stub streets for continuity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 30 of 98 Seal: I second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066 to August 15th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? It was -- can we do roll on that? I think we should do roll call on that. Roll call: Perreault, nay; McCarvel, absent; Fitzgerald, absent; Cassinelli, yea; Holland, nay; Seal, yea; Olsen, nay. Perreault: Three nays and two -- two ayes. The motion does not carry. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Would anyone like to make a motion regarding our thoughts on the application? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 18th , 2019, with the following modification: That a fence approximately four feet in height with access be constructed around the -- Perreault: Irrigation pump station. Olsen: -- irrigation -- the irrigation pump and that there be a discussion between the developer and the property owner to the north ? Perreault: West. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 31 of 98 Olsen: West. Thank you. To the west. That a discussion between them take place prior to the City Council meeting. Perreault: Do we have any seconds? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Can we open for discussion before we continue with getting a second on that? Perreault: Yeah. Yeah. If there is not a second keep chatting away. Holland: My only concern with the motion -- I -- I agree with being able to open up and have them have a conversation before this moves to City Council. Is giving a specific of a four foot fence I would almost rather have the staff work with the applicant on what safeguards would be best applicable in this case , rather than giving a specific parameter of a four foot fence. That they could work and look at what other ponds have done that -- for safety measures and figure out something that would work. That would be what I would feel more comfortable with. That's my comment. Perreault: While I'm not permitted to make motions, might I suggest that there be some clarification on -- for the parties regarding -- do we want something in writing from them on public record about their meeting, some notes from the meeting, date of the meeting, prior to City Council? Is that something that the Commission desires to happen? And, if so, please include it in your motion. Olsen: Should that be submitted to staff? Perreault: Yes. Olsen: Is that the idea? Perreault: If that's the Commission's desire. Again, I am not permitted to make a motion on that, but it might be a suggestion. Seal: Want me to make a stab at it? Perreault: I'm sorry? Is that motion again? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Excuse me. Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0066 as presented in the staff report Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 32 of 98 for the hearing date of July 18th, 2019, with the following modifications: That safety fencing be installed around the irrigation pond to prevent access and that the property owner to the west and the developer meet and discuss and document and submit to staff a mutual agreement for the stub street. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Can I make another suggestion on the motion? Perreault: Or you can make a new motion. Seal: There we go. Holland: Or can I make a new motion? Perreault: Absolutely. Holland: Would that be appropriate? Perreault: If his -- if his motion wasn't seconded. Are you withdrawing your motion, Commissioner Seal? Seal: I will withdraw my motion. Perreault: Thank you. Olsen: Do I need to withdraw mine? Perreault: Yes. Olsen: I withdraw mine. Perreault: Just to be clear. Olsen: Thank you. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 18th, 2019, with the following modifications. That the applicant work with the neighboring property owner to have discussions about the stub street location and potential future cross-access and that they would present the results back to staff in writing of -- of that conversation and that the applicant would work Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 33 of 98 with staff on what safety measures should be included around that irrigation pond, whether that be a fence or whether that be another kind of -- of measure to keep children out of the irrigation pond. Olsen: I will second that. Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve the application for Millbrae Subdivision, H-2019-0066, with modifications. All those in favor say aye. None opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: One opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. We will move on to the next application. Prior to doing that I just want to say I really appreciate the public's patience as we go through these deliberations. Each -- as Meridian grows and gets bigger each application that comes to us it's critically important that we deliberate in a very specific way as more and more land gets developed. So, just thank you very much for sticking with us as we try to get this right. B. Public Hearing Continued from June 20, 2019 for Silver Springs (H-2019-0058) by Tall Timber Consulting and Todd Campbell Construction Inc., Located at 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5. 19 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 57 Building Lots and 6 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in the R- 4 Zoning District. Perreault: Our next application is continued from June 20th, 2019, for Silver Springs, H- 2019-0058. Can we start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Commissioner -- Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Silver Springs Subdivision. This property was continued from the June 20th hearing for the specific reasons -- to bring back some recommended DA provisions for you -- for your consideration for the nonconforming use that is occurring on one of the properties that's being proposed for annexation. Staff did prepare a memo for you and that is included as part of the record. So, if that's something you choose to act on this evening we would ask that you would include that as part of your motion to include those recommended DA provisions as part of the project. If you recall, three of the properties -- so, that the overall acreage of this property is 19.74 acres of land. Part of its -- 15 acres -- or approximately 15 acres is currently R-4 in the city currently and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 34 of 98 fourth parcel, which is the easternmost parcel, is currently five acres, RUT in Ada county, and that is the property that has the nonconforming use. At the last hearing we had informed the Commission that staff had -- was recommending denial of the annexation, because we did not want the nonconforming use to remain in place. The applicant did provide a revised plan to us. It doesn't look like it's here. My apologies. I have to pull up the other slideshow here. The wrong one got opened up again. There we go. Now we got the right slide up to -- so, that's -- the reason -- this is the revised plat that was also part of that discussion. If you recall there were some -- staff had some concerns with the cul-de-sac length. There was some issues with the open space not meeting UDC standards and, then, the -- one of the current homes the applicant was requesting a waiver for the access to McMillan Road and, then, also there was a condition of approval in the staff report that the applicant would provide -- or to extend the sidewalk along the entire frontage of McMillan Road with the first phase of development . Staff did receive some written testimony from the applicant. It sounds like we are getting closer on all those items. You should have had that included in your packet as well. But really we are left with essentially three items. So, the applicant's in agreement with the recommended DA provisions that we provided to you in that memo . Again, the applicant wants to take the cul-de-sac link up with the City Council to see if there is a way they could just waive the code requirement and they realize that the Commission -- he realizes that the Commission cannot -- there is no processing code to allow that and, then, also the applicant would like concessions on the deferral of the sidewalk along that annexed parcel to be extended with the -- consistent with their phasing plan. So, if you can see my cursor here, he wants to defer the pathway and frontage improvements with development -- this development with the second phase. So, you can see on there -- on this new exhibit here that this is included with phase two, rather than phase one as recommended by staff. And, then, if you recall, ACHD did approve the existing home to McMillan to have one access point -- continue to have -- close one access point and keep the one existing open and, again, that would require a Council waiver, but certainly if that's something that you want to recommend onto City Council as you deliberate on this this evening that's certainly within your purview and we can include that as part of the public record. So, I -- the other changes I would mention to you -- here is the addition of the open space as recommended by staff. So, the plan that's before you this evening does have -- meet the open space requirements of the UDC, so as I mentioned to you, the applicant has not revised the cul-de-sac link this evening and they are asking for concession of the sidewalk with phase two on that annexation portion of the plat and, of course, take under consideration the extension of that nonconforming use on the property. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 35 of 98 Cassinelli: Bill, I have got a couple questions. One was -- was there no discussion about taking access on that existing home internally and if -- if so what was the -- as opposed to going out onto McMillan? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly that's something that we had talked about at the last hearing, too, because the garage is located here. But, again, the applicant has elected to go forward with the waiver request at City Council, but, certainly, if that's something within your purview that you want to see happen , you can include that in your motion as well that you -- that would be your preference as this goes onto City Council. It's really a Council waiver. Nothing for this body to do at this point, unless that's something that you want to recommend on to City Council. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, the second question is over on Block 1, Lot 14, was there -- somewhere over in there was there consideration to take that cul-de-sac, which I'm assuming that's the cul-de-sac that's in question that -- the length of the cul-de-sac there? Parsons: That is correct. Cassinelli: To the -- to the west? Was there not -- did they not look at -- at taking access -- is that the existing roadway there into Copper Basin? I think -- did they not look to take access into that? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if you recall -- I don't know if you were at the last -- Cassinelli: I wasn't hear at that one, no. Parsons: Yeah. At the last hearing we had to divulged -- that -- that's what's really necessitating the longer cul-de-sac length. When the adjacent subdivision to the west was developed they were required to provide a cross-access across their common lot into this parcel. The applicant -- that was staff's preference. We had the applicant go to ACHD and see if ACHD could require that to be dedicated as right of way and make that connection and it was the opinion of their legal counsel that they could not, because it was an easement and not dedicated right of way and that's why it's necessitated the design that you have here with the extended cul-de-sac length. So, there is no opportunity to get an access to that roadway at this time and that was in the staff report. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Bill, one quick question. So, you had mentioned a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 for the existing driveway access to McMillan for the house at 1035 McMillan Road . Your -- are you referencing the -- the driveway on the east, but leaving the driveway on the west? Is that -- are you -- when you say a waiver for the existing driveway, you're talking about the -- the east driveway? Or, excuse me, the west driveway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 36 of 98 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would believe that would be the one ACHD and staff would prefer to stay if it's approved, because it aligns with the road across the street and that's typically what we like to see . Perreault: The one on the east? Parsons: The one on the east. Yeah. Perreault: Okay. But -- but the applicant is okay with -- with removing the one on the west? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the e-mail that I received from the applicant it appears he is in agreement with ACHD's condition to close the western access point. Perreault: Okay. So, if ACHD isn't requiring that eastern driveway to be removed, then, -- then everything's good in that regard. Am I misunderstanding that? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, ACHD is -- has approved one access point remaining -- Perreault: Okay. Parsons: -- and that's the eastern access point. So, now the applicant needs to gain a waiver from City Council per the UDC. Perreault: Okay. I see. Anymore questions for staff? Would the applicant please come forward. Yorgason: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Dave Yorgason here representing myself, as well as a -- combined with the neighboring -- combined developer -- really two developers in one application. Todd Campbell Construction is the western half of this. For the record my address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise. And, yes, I recognize there is one or two new faces that may not have been here at the last meeting, so happy to answer any questions you may have just to kind of get you up to speed. Staff is correct. There is three items. So, we -- we did go back and make several changes to the design in -- per the direction of this Commission. We made the common area wider for the school access path. We added some other open spaces, some of which were qualified open space, yes, but we made it more usable and, additionally, we added a micropath on the eastern side off that eastern cul -de-sac. The three items that have -- and there is a few other minor items, but the three items which are still as staff identified of concern. Two of which really cannot be addressed by this -- by decision by this Commission. One of which is the cul-de-sac length and, secondly, is the access for the 1035 East McMillan. Let me just quickly highlight those. If you want to make comment that would be great, but not required certainly. The cul-de-sac length, Commissioner Cassinelli, that's been one of the more difficult things I have done in my -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 37 of 98 over 20 years of my career. That clearly should have gone through to the west. We wanted to, we design it that way, but after several iterations and discussions and opposition we just couldn't find a way to make that work and so, unfortunately, we are not allowed to run that connection to the west. So, we are stuck with what we have, this cul- de-sac. I have looked at dozens of -- frankly dozens of ways to design -- redesign and this is the best alternative we have come up with to try to satisfy fire department and other means. It's just a planning code, it's not a fire department requirement to have those cul- de-sac at 450 feet. We are slightly over that. It's close to 500 feet. However, we understand this Commission cannot make that decision. So, if you want to make comment on it, that's great, but I will move on. The second thing was the access to 1035 McMillan. We agree with the ACHD staff report. We are comfortable with and I have agreed to eliminate the western of the two accesses. The other one lines up with an existing street Larkwood, which is why ACHD was supportive of that home retaining that one access, which is -- that's where the driveway is, that's where the garage is, that's where it makes the most sense. Lastly -- and I would just like to point out in the development agreement conditions we did work with staff on those. Those are agreeable to the landscape contractor, who is operating his business there, including the sunset clause that has been identified in the DA requirements. So, with that there is one condition, that's condition number two, which relates to the phasing of the sidewalk along the frontage. It would be a significant hardship for us to install that sidewalk in the first phase. We identified that in the prior meeting in front of this commission, but I will just restate them -- several of which, one of -- the contractor continues to operate his business and so he has driveway accesses -- the driveway would -- whatever sidewalk we put in will probably be broken or have to be torn out. Second, when we put the landscape berm through and when we do that second phase, that sidewalk elevation maybe we know the distance from the existing road at McMillan, but we are not going to be able to do it until that landscape berm goes in. Again, it will have to come out. Thirdly, the contractor is further to the east. There is two other landscape contractors east of this property, of which have no interest to develop. In fact, they are expanding their business as I understand, certainly the one two parcels east of this. And so with that in mind, installing the sidewalk at the proper phase would be appropriate, not requiring it just be all installed in the -- all of the first phase. It won't be utilized. There is a major pathway on the northern side to help kids facilitate walking back and forth, so we are asking that condition number two be deleted, because the other improvements, including sidewalk, will be all installed during the second phase. So, our ask for you tonight is to approve our application, removing the second condition of the development agreement memo and including the entire balance of that development agreement memo as a part of the recommendation of approval to the City Council. If you want to make comments on those two items that would be appropriate, but I understand that cannot be a decision tonight. Stand for any questions you have. Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 38 of 98 Cassinelli: I -- Dave, I have got a -- I do have a question on the access to that one property. I don't have the address, but going to McMillan. I -- honestly, I often find it very odd when a -- a new subdivision is developed around -- perhaps an existing home. It always looks out of place. That -- that home is taking access -- I mean up and down McMillan you see it and Ustick and in several other places. What -- why -- why haven't you designed that taking access -- having that really a part of the new subdivision and taking access internally? Yorgason: Madam Commissioner, Commissioner Cassinelli, a c ouple of answers. First of all, the owner of the home will stay there. He is in his 80s and he plans to stay there until he's no longer there and so we -- a couple of parts to that. First of all -- and staff didn't mention this, but that parcel and the other parcel adjacent to it and the other three that are already annexed into the city, they were -- with their developments that went forward, they are not -- they weren't required to remove their accesses. In fact, he is allowed to keep both accesses and so we think we are actually doing quite a bit of benefit to the city by removing as many as we can. Why did it -- to specifically answer your question, why not this home. Because when it gets redeveloped that's where -- if there is adequate frontage to make that change it will happen at that time. It's a large enough parcel, we envision one, maybe even two parcels -- building home lot -- home sizes in the future, but at this time that would not be the case. I do agree with you, though, I drive up and down the city, I see lots of -- call them waivers or whatever may have been done in the past. I don't know. But this -- this is a plan -- it's just more of -- it will happen in the near future, not at this time to remove access and so that's our -- our request and that's what will be discussed at City Council as well. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Perreault: At this time we will take public testimony. Is there anyone signed up to testify? Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is nobody signed up to testify. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to testify? No? Okay. Thank you. If that's all the applicant has for us, then, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Olsen: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 39 of 98 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Silver Springs , H-2019-0058. All those in favor say aye. None opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: So, before we deliberate this evening I just want to -- there is a few moving parts in this and I want to clarify what -- what our decision as a commission entails. First of all, the -- there -- this is composed of four -- four parcels and we are only looking at annexation and zoning of the eastern five acres with -- on that parcel. The other properties have already been annexed. So, keep that in mind when we are making this decision it's just regarding that eastern five acres and that the -- the staff has recommended approval of the preliminary plat that recommended denial of annexation and zoning of that five acres, because of a nonconforming use concerns. So, we are not necessarily here to decide whether that use is conforming or noncomforming, but we are to make a decision regarding whether it will be the city's responsibility once we make a recommendation for the annexation and zoning of that piece. So, if there is any questions about what it is that's before us, please, definitely speak up, but I believe that clarifies what it is we are trying to do. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I remember this application when we deliberated over it, there were a lot of different pieces to it we talked about and the reason it got continued was so that staff could have time to create a DA, just for some background for other commissioners who weren't here related to the applicant's request of the portion that was on the east where the landscaping business is now, they wanted to be able to continue caring for that landscaping business until a set point in the future, which I'm -- Perreault: December 2022. Holland: December of 2022. There was a lot of discussion back and forth, but my -- my initial thoughts were that I didn't mind too much with the landscaping business , it's not -- they are trying to just get rid of their inventory and part of the challenge we heard from the landscaping company last time was that it takes time to move all those trees and shrubs off of the facility and so it would be developed in phase. So, my initial reaction is I like some of the changes they brought back to us. I think it's nice having the pathways on there, having the greenscape updated, so that we can see it. I agree with Commissioner Cassinelli's question, because we talked about that at great length at the last hearing, about wishing that they could tie into that street on the west side of the property. That would have been the preferred route for sure, but it sounded like that wasn't an option. So, through the three specific requests that they have, my thoughts -- I don't think we can decide anything on the cul-de-sac length, I think that's up for Council, so I wouldn't include that in the motion, but certainly don't -- don't see a huge issue with that as long as Fire is okay with the safety of it and as long as staff would be okay with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 40 of 98 that. Or the existing driveway access. I agree it kind of seems funky when we have random houses that have access off the main road , but in this specific case they are eliminating a couple of different access points they used to have on that roadway that you can kind of see some of the curb cuts from , so I'm okay with them having that -- that exception to remain at -- keep the existing driveway access via McMillan and, then, my other comment is on the DA provision number two, I don't see a concern with them phasing the -- the sidewalk development with the -- with the construction. So, those are my thoughts. Perreault: Thank you, Commissioner Holland. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, are we going this direction? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli, go for it. Cassinelli: I -- all in all I think the builder and the developer from projects I have seen from them in the past, do -- do good work. Their hands are tied on some of these things. I would prefer that one home take access internally. I get some of these things, but will it ever be done, that's -- that's -- that's my concern. The biggest concern, honestly, I have with this -- and you're not -- you're not going to hear me objecting to the R-4, because I'm -- I'm a fan of that and the layout is good, given what -- what we have got here. But right now -- I mean ACHD's comments back that McMillan Road currently exceeds the acceptable level of service and this is going to add to it, McMillan is -- it's a mess and the -- the plan is -- it was between 2021 and 2025 to widen that to three lanes and we are -- across the board all over the city we are getting so far out in front of the -- the infrastructure and -- and I think that's the case in the -- in this, I think we need to really consider that when ACHD -- I mean ACHD comes back and they are saying they don't -- they are not requiring anything because of the -- the size of the parcel, but, quite frankly, that's one of the big problems I have with ACHD is they -- they don't look at -- they look at it on a micro- level, they don't look at how it -- how it adds up. If it -- if you get a whole ton of projects all below the threshold, well, all of a sudden you got a mess, because they didn't look at the big picture, they looked at them individually. Looking at this individually ACHD says they are okay, but, then, at the end -- you know, on the -- on the other hand they are saying that -- that McMillan currently exceeds the acceptable level of service and that this is just going to -- this is going to add to it. All in all, I don't have -- I have got concerns with a couple things on the project. If -- if City Council okays the -- the cul-de-sac, there is -- there is not much they can do about that. I'm okay with the -- I'm going to say I'm okay with the sidewalk and striking that, but my big concern is that -- is the timing of this and I would prefer to see it down the road when -- when McMillan is addressed. When McMillan is dealt with I would love to bring in ACHD and string him up, but can't do that. It needs to be done. It's -- McMillan's a mess and this is going to make it worse. It's already unacceptable. That's -- but the project itself I like. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 41 of 98 Olsen: As far as the three conditions or the three changes, I have no problem -- well, we can't do anything about the cul-de-sac anyway. I think the idea of eliminating one of the driveways is as good as we can expect at this point in time and I have no problem with changing and making the sidewalk a phased in approach. So, I have no problem with that. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioner Seal, any thoughts you would like to share? Seal: I share the concern over the traffic load and, unfortunately, you know, if -- if we waited for -- if we waited for ACHD to build it out correctly we would never build anything here I don't think, so -- and it's -- it's a trap we are kind of stuck in right now. Unfortunately -- I mean one remark I will make an d -- as far as the staff recommendation on here and their remarks were that if we allow the property to remain -- remain open as a business and operate in there, it is up to the city to enforce that. So, if they decide not to shut that down that becomes city enforcement that has to go in there and go through that mess and I don't know the legal ramifications of that or the route that would need to be taken , but my concern is that money would need to be spent legally for that to be contested and fought and, you know, what could be a lengthy battle in court and I don't know if that's something that our legal department could speak to or -- Pogue: The conditions speak to the -- what would be the allowed use, the entitled use, including the sunset clause, that's -- I think your worries are unfounded in the sense that if -- if they fail to comply, then, the city could take action -- Bill, correct me if I'm wrong. I doubt that's -- its contractual. I doubt that would come about, that they would keep -- keep in business. Parsons: Yeah. Members of the -- Members of the Commission, certainly that's some of the concern that we shared with you at the previous hearing, why we were not in favor of continuing use, because it can -- that was one of the items we brought up, that it is a -- can be an enforcement nightmare for the city, so that's why we brought forth some provisions that we think gives our code enforcement division some clear direction as to handle this business. The intent behind the DA is to -- that it will cease in 2022, but the code does allow the applicant to reapply or expand that business and that's what the nonconforming section allows for. So, that's something that right now if they want that, they are going to have to amend the DA to do that and, then, go through the CUP process, but all indications are this use will cease and I think -- I think staff is comfortable -- again, we were -- we were against it, but we felt comfortable with the recommendations of these DA provisions that it gives a clear direction to code enforcement if there are any issues. Pogue: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that were to happen, then, pursuant to the DA that de-annexation could occur. Parsons: The city has never de-annexed property, but certainly there is always a clause in that contract that said that if you fail to comply with any of these provisions we have the right to do that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 42 of 98 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: On that note, Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming we didn't allow for the annexation of that parcel and this project were to move forward without that, that -- that parcel could continue on, if we don't annex it, remain in the county and could be a landscaping business indefinitely. So, from that standpoint this seems like a -- seems like a good solution to me. Parsons: Well, Mr. Cassinelli, there -- he is not allowed to operate in the -- in the county forever. That sunset clause is -- he just got renewed through the county. There is always a sunset clause in their CUPs as well and that's -- he just got that renewed prior to annexation into the city and that's where that sunset clause came into our -- Cassinelli: That date is from the county? Parsons: It came from the county, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: Just to clarify, he has a five year CUP from the county. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: The sunset clause they are referring to are the recommendations that city staff made regarding -- if we were to recommend that that annexation and zoning -- if we would recommend to City Council that this be annexed and zoned, there is a separate set of conditions that would be attached to the staff report that tries to clarify how that's going to operate and when that business needs to end and that's at about three years . Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: So, there are two different -- two different dates going on. Cassinelli: Okay. So, if -- but if he -- if it were not annexed and remain in the county, he has got five years. Perreault: Correct. Cassinelli: With this plan he's got three years. Perreault: Correct. Cassinelli: Is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 43 of 98 Parsons: That's the proposal before you, yes. Perreault: That's the proposal. Cassinelli: So, from that standpoint I think that's -- Perreault: Let me clarify this for you, Commissioner Cassinelli. One of the reasons why this piece was so important to the developer, if I remember correctly, is that that southern road that connects to Havasu, that will not -- they can't do that connection unless they have this fourth eastern piece and that was why this piece is critical to this. Cassinelli: I guess what I'm saying is I -- I mean this is actually -- this ends that business -- this DA with the -- with the sunset clause at 20 -- in 2022 actually is more beneficial. That business -- that will sunset in three years, as opposed to being able to go back to the county in five for possibly another extension. Perreault: I would think that's under the assumption that this is currently creating some sort of negative use or condition in the city and I don't think that's the case . It doesn't sound like there has been any kind of code enforcement issues with this nursery. So, I mean I don't know that there is any specific reason we want it to end early -- earlier than what -- Cassinelli: I guess what I'm saying is I'm comfortable with that -- with that aspect of it. Perreault: Okay. So, to be clear, if the Commission chooses to recommend annexation and zoning of this piece, we -- we need to refer in our motion to add the conditions in the DA memo that was created by staff on -- let's see, I can get the date here really quickly. Olsen: July 12th. Perreault: Oh, I just had this open. What day was it? June 12th? Parsons: July 12th. Perreault: July 12th. We want to reference that -- that that gets attached as an additional set of conditions to the staff report to your memo that's of public record on July 12th, because -- for verification, Bill, the -- the county has conditions in the CUP, but the city doesn't have conditions for nonconforming uses and so staff created these conditions over review of the CUP and other city code to custom for this specific application, so that's why we would need to attach those conditions to the staff report specifically. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: Does that make sense? Cassinelli: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 44 of 98 Perreault: Okay. That being said, are there anymore thoughts on -- or questions for staff regarding the annexation and zoning of that specific piece? Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, if I could just -- for a point of clarification, one of the recommended DA provisions was number two, as the applicant informed you. That's the one that requires the sidewalk along the entire frontage with the first phase. It sounds like some of the Commission is amenable to pushing that off to the second phase . So, that would be the only DA provision that would require modification if the Commission chooses to do that. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Is the -- the applicant requesting that that entire sidewalk, is that all in phase two? There is not a portion in phase one and a portion in phase two? There is a portion -- yeah. It's all involved in this. Correct. Perreault: All of it is currently required to be done in phase one for the entire project . They are requesting that that section be done in phase two, because the property isn't going to be built on until after the sunset clause expires. Olsen: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: One thing I wanted to point out for the Commissioners in these -- these conditions that the staff put together for us, which we really, really appreciate, because I'm sure that wasn't an easy process, it does say that there would not be any sale of products on -- conducted on site. So, I would assume that the owner would need to take down -- cut down any of the -- any of his products and move it to a different location for the sale of it. So, there won't be -- and it's my understanding that the condition is not allowing them to conduct business in that regard on the site, that it would be -- need to be done elsewhere? Is that the intent? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that was the intent is that public wouldn't go there and buy landscape stock, load up their vehicles and leave the site. This business operates more like a contractor's yard. So, the stock he has on his property, he is loading up in his -- his trucks to take to the job site. So, there is -- that's why we put that restriction in there that there wasn't any retail sales from -- or customers coming to the site and picking up items. Perreault: Are there currently customers coming to the site, do we know? Parsons: I don't -- I'm not aware of that, so I can't speak to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 45 of 98 Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: From what I remember it's -- what -- what Bill stated that it's -- they typically sell to developers who are building subdivisions. Perreault: Okay. Holland: So, they load up the trucks. I think the only exception that would be maybe that someone from that -- developing a subdivision might come and pick up the trucks, but they would be working as a contractor with that neighborhood. So, he's just trying to avoid the residential sales. Perreault: Got you. Thank you. Holland: Someone coming in that wants a tree for their front yard. Perreault: I think that's a critical element in our decision that we know that -- that there aren't members of the public just coming during business hours and picking up individual products, so -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I may just comment again. I just want to -- I do want to state my -- my opposition and Commissioner Seal said if we wait for ACHD we will never get anything done around here. But the problem is is -- in my mind it's gotten so bad that we have got to wait for them, we have got to get the infrastructure built before we continue and at some point we have got to really look at this and say, you know, where -- where do we need to -- where do we need to slow down and -- and tap the brakes and -- and get the roads done first, as opposed to waiting for ACHD and I get it that if we -- if we wait for them nothing will get done, but the plan for McMillan is it's not -- is 2021 to 2025. I mean we are still -- and if that goes to 2025 we are looking at five and a half years, possibly, before they do anything with that. In my mind it needs to be done today on McMillan, but it's not, it's -- but I just -- I want it -- want it on the record that -- that -- and I'm not just looking at this project, I'm talking about everything going on in Meridian, we have gotten so far out of -- out in front of it and -- I mean the number one complaint just about is the growth, the -- what's going on, the traffic, and that comes back on -- that comes back on us and it comes back on City Council. So, that was my comment on that. Perreault: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, is it your opinion that because of the nonconforming use and the traffic, that it would be better for the applicant to wait? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 46 of 98 Cassinelli: I don't have a problem with a nonconforming use at all. I think the way that it -- that's been addressed from the July 12th meeting is fine . My issue is that right now current level is almost double. I think this is -- you're going to double the -- the acceptable levels of peak hour traffic on -- on McMillan with the numbers there and that -- that's -- it's nuts. It's crazy. Holland: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: There is no center turn lane down McMillan, it's -- it's terrible down McMillan. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair. I wish that we could design the streetscapes in -- in what order we want to see them happen, but I know we don't have that purview. The only thing I will note is that because this is an R-4 instead of an R-6, which I believe -- or an R-8, they could have gone for it, it's a little bit less of an impact because of that. It could have been a higher use. And phase two won't develop until at least 2021 when that business is phased out. So, that helps a little bit with the offsetting of it. The only other note is that if you follow the stub street that connects to the south there would be a secondary access that someone could go through to get off on Locust Grove, which might help a little bit, too. Just a couple points of comment. But if there is other deliberations certainly happy to do it, but I would be happy to attempt a motion and see what happens. Perreault: This application, since we first heard it, some -- part of what we do is sort of intuition; right? Gut feeling -- or not gut feeling. That's not the right word. Just judgment call I guess and something hasn't quite set right with me about it in this location and I can't put my finger on it necessarily, accept that I'm just not sure this is the right development for this location at this time and I don't know how to clarify that specifically, but I'm not -- I'm not in disagreement with Commissioner Cassinelli regarding the road and I don't think it's going to make a huge traffic impact, but I feel a little bit like we are trying to put a square peg into a round hole here with this particular -- and I appreciate the applicant's changes that they have made and all of the -- all of the things that the staff has done to clarify things for us and so that's not me making my vote necessarily, but there is just something to me that it just feels like there is a lot of different things that have to happen to get this to work and so maybe perhaps it's not exactly the right thing at the right time, so -- but at the same time there is another side of me that says we have four different parcels here and if they are not developed together that could become a worse situation than what we are seeing in front of us if you choose not to annex this eastern five piece -- five acre piece, that could become a challenge, just like we have been discussing on the application on Millbrae Subdivision where you have this five acre piece that's sitting between two subdivisions. So, there is that aspect as well, that we have these four parcels, they really do need to be approached in a cohesive way or we are going to -- we could potentially create more challenges than -- if that makes sense. I'm sure that helps everyone. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 47 of 98 Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm just curious what -- how you see this as a -- as not fitting in there, because it -- it is tying in with the -- with the R-4 to the -- to the west, if I'm not mistaken. Is it just the layout of it? Perreault: I don't -- I don't -- I do have concerns about the length of the cul-de-sac, but I also really dislike that they can't connect to the -- the access on the west, but at the same time there is never going to be an allowance -- it doesn't sound like that's ever going to be connected. It would be a different story if they were just trying to develop half of this and, you know, there was access out and it looks like at this time they couldn't create access on that western side, but I agree and as we had a discussion at the last hearing that -- that I would really like to see them to be able -- be able to exit on the west side. That's -- that bothered me in the last hearing and it still concerns me now. And I don't disagree with you about having internal access from the house on the north side, although I'm not super concerned, that's not my biggest concern, it just -- I don't know. I don't mean that it doesn't fit in terms of R-4 or R-8, I'm not talking from a density standpoint, it's just -- it seems like there is a lot of things that are going to have to go exactly right to make this work. At the same time I -- I see how there could be concerns about -- if these four pieces were to be developed separately. Holland: Madam Chair? I think -- that's where I come in, too, is that I could see all these parcels developing individually and making a much higher density use in here than -- than this project if it goes back to the drawing board and that would come back forward . I believe McMillan is planned to be expanded. I'm not sure what time frame that will take place. Again, I wish I could help with the time frames and help encourage them on which roads to take as priorities, but they have got a limited amount of dollars, too, and they try to do the best they can with the -- the impact fees that they collect. They will be collecting impact fees from this development. As far as layouts that you could get, this one has a pretty good traffic-calming measure with the way that the roadways go through. I don't think you're going to be getting a big speed trap of a bunch of cars zooming through this, which I appreciate, and I like that they have got some green space kind of central to it and that they have done a good job of trying to add more pathway connections through the project. It's always hard -- I don't think -- if this isn't the project that's here I would be worried about what would come back next time and I think that they have done a pretty good job laying out a development that would work well for those four lots and in a phased approach, because that eastern portion won't develop until that landscaping business phases out. So, it gives another few years for that roadway to potentially be expanded and if this goes forward it also helps with the sidewalks, because right now if you're trying to ride a bike on McMillan you have a lot of starts and stops on sidewalks, which can make it difficult, so -- and maybe that's a conversation of why the staff would prefer to have that sidewalk go all the way through, because there is going to be another couple hundred feet that's got no sidewalk on it if we don't ask them to do that all at one time. Perreault: It does sound like that there is a practical challenge on the developer's part with that sidewalk with -- with it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 48 of 98 Holland: Which is why I'm okay waiting for that. Perreault: Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Okay. Are we at a place where any of the Commissioners would like to make a motion? Holland: Madam Chair, I will attempt one. Perreault: Okay. Commissioner Holland, please do. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 18th, 2019, with the following modifications: That the -- the DA provisions that were provided by staff will be attached to the staff report from July 12th and with a modification of DA provision number two, which requires the sidewalk to be constructed along the entire frontage, that they would, in stead, allow that to be phased when phase two comes in and that the waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 for the existing driveway access to McMillan could remain for the home at 1035 East McMillan until the time that the property redevelops. Olsen: I will second that. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve application for Silver Springs , H- 2019-0058 with modifications. All of those in favor say aye. None opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Opposed. Perreault: Oh, one opposed. Commissioner -- Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: Okay. Way: Roll call? Perreault: To be clear, Commissioner Holland, Commissioner Perreault, and Commissioner Olsen are in favor. Commissioner Cassinelli and Commissioner Seal are not in favor, so -- but the motion does carry. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: May I request a break? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 49 of 98 Perreault: Absolutely. We will take at five to seven minute -- seven minute break and return for the next application. (Recess: 8:10 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.) Perreault: If I could have everyone's attention. If everyone could take their seats now we will proceed with the meeting. Thank you very much. Before we proceed with this next hearing I would like to just reiterate regarding the testimonies -- the public testimony. We have a lot of folks here. We -- we would love to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions. That's what we are here for. But at the same time we ask that if there are folks that have shared the same opinions and thoughts that if -- if you have something new to add we would love to hear it, but, otherwise, if it's -- if we are hearing the same ideas being repeated over and over again we want to just definitely respect that we get all the different opinions possible in this evening and so it's my understanding there are a couple of individuals who have several folks that have agreed to allow them to testify on their behalf , so if your name is on the list that was given us by Malissa -- Malissa Bernhard and/or you have given permission for the HOA president to testify on your behalf , then, please, understand that you will forego your three minute opportunity to testify. We will ask for a show of hands when those individuals speaking on behalf of large groups come up to the podium. We will, please, ask you to raise your hands at that time showing us that you allow them to testify on your behalf . So, I just wanted to clarify that before we open the hearing. C. Public Hearing Continued from May 2, 2019 for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Devco Development, LLC, Located 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4. 10 acres of land currently in Boise' s area of City Impact in Meridian' s area of City Impact with a Mixed Use -Regional future land use designation; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi-family development and 12 common lots Perreault: So, at this time we will open the public hearing that was continued from May 2nd, 2019, for the Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027, and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was continued from the hearing date May 2nd . If you recall at that time the applicant did Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 50 of 98 request continuance due to the fact that ACHD's commission had not provided a staff -- ACHD staff did not have a staff report and that due to the number of concerns from the adjacent neighbors it required commission's action , so the applicant would not have a staff report at the time that this was going to be heard by this Commission. So, no public testimony was taken at that hearing and this body also requi red the applicant to pay a renoticing fee, so that all the adjacent neighbors that are within the 300 foot boundary were notified that there was a new hearing scheduled for this evening. So, all of those parameters that you laid out at that hearing were f ollowed in accordance with this body's recommendation back there on -- back on May 2nd, 2019. So, the applicant is here tonight to talk about the Delano Subdivision. So, it's a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. It's an annexation and rezone -- or annexation, zoning and, then, preliminary plat approval. The property consists of 15.21 acres of land currently zone d RUT in Ada county and is located at 2800 and 14120 West Jasmine Lane . To the north we have the Alpine Point Subdivision, zoned R-4. South we have Brickyard Subdivision, which is a multi-family development, which is currently under construction, zoned C-G. To the west and east are Ada county rural residential properties zoned RUT. As you can see in the map. And to the south, which is rural residential, which is -- so, the area that's within the Boise city area of impact, this particular property is zoned A-1 in the city of Boise and as I get into the Comprehensive Plan map amendment portion of the site that will come -- be part of some of the discussion tonight, because a portion of this -- the R-40 portion of this site is currently -- that's requested for annexation in the comp plan amendment is within the city -- the Boise city's area of city impact and there is typically a process that the applicant needs to follow in order for that to come forward before you. And so as I mentioned -- so currently here is the Comprehensive Plan map amendment that the applicant is proposing. Currently as I mentioned to you, this is within the city -- the Boise city area of city impact, so there is no future land use designation on this particular property within the city of Meridian, because we have not planned services for this. The applicant was in front of Boise and asked -- submitted an application to the city of Boise to remove it, so that they can request us to included it as part of our map amendment. Prior to getting in front of their city council they withdrew their application. Staff did receive a letter from Daren Fluke, who is the plan -- long range planning manager at the city of Boise requesting that the Commission defer this or deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment until such time as they go through the process with the city of Boise and that is included as part of your public record this evening. And staff's recommendation for the comp plan amendment -- in our pre-application meetings with the staff, with -- with the applicant, we had some concerns with just bringing in this portion as well . It was communicated to the applicant that it would be staff's preference that they actually bring in the northern portion of the property as part of this comp plan amendment and work with the city of Boise to get their blessing or their support on having that moved into our area of impact. Now, the applicant's requesting that it come into our city, because of the location of the city utilities. We have ran this by our Public Works Department, they feel like we can adequately service this and the city of Boise is going to have difficulties providing sewer to this particular property. Also to complicate matters, United Water is -- also has a service boundary for that four acre piece as well, but as part of the application submittal the applicant did provide a -- a letter from United Water or Suez, excuse me, and they were in support of Meridian providing water to this particular property. So, just Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 51 of 98 keep those -- that in mind as we head to our process this evening. So, moving on, the other concern -- and the reason why we wanted to include the northern portion -- or at lease wanted the applicant to work -- get consent from the adjacent property owner and bring in that northern peace was for the logical extension of city utilities. If we are going to bring a road up into the site and stub utilities, we don't want to have a piece of property between us and this property where we are just going to have utilities stubbed to nowhere and never be used and so it was critical for us that this piece came in. We realize we couldn't make the applicant do it. We asked them as a good -- good faith to do that and in speaking -- I haven't had a chance to speak with the neighbor of that northern property, but she -- based on conversations with the applicant, she had no desire to be part of their applications submittal. So, that's why you don't see that as part of the application and we did confer with our city attorney's office and there was no way that the city could , essentially, force them to include that as part of their application submittal. But just to make sure that the stub streets that they were proposing with the extension of this property -- or annexation of his property we did have the applicant provide us a -- a conceptual development plan, which you see here before you. So, again, nothing -- this won't be tied in any development agreement, it's just staff was concerned how that road would be -- and utilities would be extended through this property and so we needed a plan to share with you on how that could work. So, as I mentioned to you along with the comp plan amendment and the annexation, the applicant -- they are annexing in with two zones, so that four acre piece and -- currently in the city -- Boise's area of impact is proposed to be annexed R-40 to develop with a future multi-family development. In the application -- application materials the applicant has indicated that there is potential -- there is a potential for 96 units on that site. If it is annexed they would have to come back with a future conditional use permit. So, another public hearing, essentially, to determine the actual density for that. The mixed use designation -- because this site doesn't have a Comprehensive Plan designation, the applicant -- staff has to analyze what is the best land used for that particular property. In our staff report Sonya did a great job of letting you know what the city of Boise had planned for this area, so we looked at what we have that's comparable to what the city of Boise envisioned for the property and we landed on mixed-use regional and that's why the R-40 is -- and multi-family is proposed for that site. We feel like that would provide a nice transition for what the city of Boise plans for the property east of this R-40 piece. The R-15 piece is slated to develop with both single family and single-family attached homes. You can see here the applicant's proposing 85 single family lots. Access to this proposed development would come from the stub street from the north -- from the adjacent subdivision in Alpine Point, which is a stub street, which -- which is North Dashwood Avenue and, then, the second access would come from Centrepoint Way via Jasmine Street, which is located along the south boundary. I will let you know if you had a chance to look at ACHD's staff report some of the concerns that came about -- some of their recommended conditions was to allow a portion of Jasmine to be constructed into the site to serve as emergency access for this development, but all the primary access would go through the local street to the north at this point as recommended by ACHD. The Centrepoint Way would not be extended for -- until such time as it connected to Wainwright Drive, which is a collector street farther to the north or unless ten years has past. So, there is -- they would have to dedicate the right of way, possibly -- but not -- nothing would connect until such time as it connected Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 52 of 98 to Wainwright. But the -- ACHD was amenable to it being an emergency access and that's a requirement for the city code as well, the Fire Department, to have secondary access. Open space for the site. The applicant does meet -- exceed the minimums. They are at 11.5 percent open space. Amenities include shade structure, play structure, children's climbing dome, children's climb boulder, seating benches, micro paths, swings -- possibly a swing set, which exceeds UDC standards. I would mention to the Commission that the open space that was showing as part of the open space exhibit for the multi-family development was not included in the open space calc for the single family portion of the development. That particular project, if annexed, if the comp plan amendment is approved and annexed into the city, would require a separate CUP, requiring its own open space and own amenities when it came forward with the future application and that's kind of what this exhibit shows here for you this evening . And, then, it -- more of a blow up of what those amenities are for you this evening to take under consideration. And here is the -- the housing project that is proposed for the R-15 piece and the multi-family piece, which is pretty consistent to other developments that the developer has done within the city. If you had a chance to look at the public record, which I know you have, you can see that we have received many letters of testimony on this particular application, primarily from the -- the neighbors to the north and a lot of their concerns has to do with the -- the intensity or the density of the development adjacent to them. Not enough transition in lot sizes from -- between them and this particular project. Extension of their stub street along the north of Dashwood Place Lane coming -- or, excuse me, street coming into the site. Extension of Centrepoint Way and the traffic generated from the development, from the commercial and multi-family to the south. They feel like it's going to create cut-through traffic. As I mentioned to you, ACHD is limiting -- or controlling the timing of that Centrepoint -- or that collector roadway being constructed until later in the day or when it can be connected to Wainwright, which is the collector road that feeds into this development and, then, safety concerns for children pertaining to the traffic. Again, staff -- kind of a double-edged sword. I think Sonya did a great job in her staff report. I just want to be clear on the record that staff -- as far as what your purview is tonight -- so, certainly the comp plan amendment and the annexation, staff has recommended at least potential for denial if that northern piece did not come in with that -- with that owner's consent. The applicant has -- wasn't able to do that and, then, you have the caveat of the city of Boise wanting them to follow their process. So, you can see here there is -- there is some challenges here. Usually we like to -- we try to be good neighbors and work with local adjacent jurisdictions to make sure that we -- we are following the processes that -- that we have in place and in this particular case I will let the applicant kind of go into their reasoning for pulling their application for you as we get into the public hearing. But certainly staff's recommendation is -- and for you this evening is if -- if you don't feel comfortable with the comp plan amendment or not having Boise's approval, then, certainly that's within your purview to -- to recommend denial of the project and allow City Council to take that under consideration. If you feel like you want official weigh-in from the city of Boise, you can certainly continue the application and defer it until such time as they get that work done. I'm not sure how quickly that would take. That could be an extensive process for them to do that. What we don't want you to do and -- is we don't want you to bifurcate the application. So, we don't want you to partially deny it and, then, partially approve it. If you're going to lean towards a denial Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 53 of 98 staff would recommend that you deny the whole -- the whole application, because it -- from our standpoint the extension to Centrepoint Way is -- is necessary to facilitate logical extension of utilities into this site and that's how that's going to make this project work . So, if you don't approve of the comp plan amendment or the annexation, then, the whole project needs to go forward for a recommendation to City Council. And, then, also I wanted to make mention we -- staff did -- when we were doing our staff report we did forget -- I don't want to say we forgot, but we should have required cross-access or a local street extension with a multi-family development for the property to the east. We did not have a provision of that in -- in our recommendation to you. So, if you are leaning towards a recommendation of approval, we would ask that you add a condition that the applicant provide a -- either a local street connection through the multi-family development to the property to the east or at least a cross-access to that property for future connectivity. If the applicant doesn't like that requirement they can certainly take that up with Council during the process for a waiver and I think that's their intent this evening is to discuss the waiver process with you. So with that, again, that staff would encourage you to tread lightly with the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and the annexation, really take that under consideration as to whether or not it's in the best interest of the city to annex and put a comp plan designation on property that's currently in the boundary of the city of Boise City's area of city impact. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, can you -- can you put that map back up? I think it was like the -- the first one, perhaps, that showed the city of Boise's zoning in there and can you -- what is -- so what is A-1? What's -- and what is their plan for -- is all in the white A-1 and what is that? I guess just give me a good understanding of what -- of what their -- Parsons: Commissioner Cassinelli, I have no idea what A-1 is. But I know they have a mixed-use designation on the property, so they want a mix of commercial, high-density residential. I would probably defer to the applicant. They have had more discussions with the city of Boise on what they envision for this property. They think it's going to be pretty intensified, it's going to have a lot of commercial, but the site is pretty challenged with access to Eagle Road. It -- from our understanding ITD will not grant any further access to Eagle Road for that property and that seems to be the challenge. So, it's up in the air. We don't know -- I mean just because there is a comp plan designation on that it doesn't mean that this property owner can't go to the city of Boise and do the same thing and change the comp plan designation to something else to make it work. I mean there is a process there as well. I was hoping to have somebody from the city of Boise to answer questions for you this evening. I don't know if there is -- if Tom made it or not this evening, but surely would be helpful to hear their -- their take on the application as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 54 of 98 Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: And Bill and Commissioner Cassinelli, it looks like A-1 stands for open lands and parks is what that zone stands for in Boise's code. Cassinelli: And, then, Bill, can you also address the -- that property to the -- to the north. What -- what was -- there was an issue I think with -- with access for utilities and things. What -- can you cover that again -- Parsons: Madam Chair -- Cassinelli: -- and how that fits in? Parsons: -- well, the reason why it's important to city staff that it's included is because the -- when you have a comp plan, right, you're -- the city's planning for extension of utilities. That's the purpose of designating future development and logical extension of utilities. It's our understanding that the city of Boise can't serve some of that adequately at this point in discussions with the applicant. Our Public Works has worked with the applicant and shown that we can adequately serve those two parcels with the current infrastructure that's located in the area. So, in our minds is if that doesn't come in at this point, it doesn't -- it's not the best fit for the city to annex this in or put a designation on it, because it doesn't appear to be a logical extension of utilities, because we have a collective road that needs to connect a t Wainwright, if you can see my cursor here, Bill, this is Wainwright, so ACHD -- all we are doing -- he's stubbing the street -- the collector street at this point. The rest of it has to jog in and tie into the city of Boise here. So, if we can't service this why are we going to stub a collector road to -- for utilities that won't ever be used. So, it makes a lot of sense from our perspective if we know we can serve it , we know Boise can't, then, why not take a logical approach to it and bring in this area with this property, so that we can make that nexus and that logical extension and gain the support from the city of Boise and from you to allow this to happen . It just seems to be the natural progression. That's usually what happens -- I mean this isn't anything new. The developer has worked with the city of Boise, removed property, entered property into our area of city impact. That's -- if they are small areas, we just go ahead and do that. We have an agreement where we work it out and we annex that. For whatever reason after we published the staff report, we received a letter from the city of Boise that said, hey, wait, we want them -- we want you to deny this or defer it an d so that they can go through our process. That's -- that's a little strange to staff certainly. It's not -- it's not typical on some of the previous ones that we have dealt with on the city of Boise, because we also allow areas to go back to them that we can't adequately serve. So, there is a process there and there is state law that has to be followed as well. Cassinelli: And, Madam Chair, another question for -- for staff. Is there -- assuming that Centrepoint would continue up, it could never -- Centrepoint couldn't access Wainwright, could it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 55 of 98 Parsons: No. Cassinelli: Is there -- those -- those parcels, are they not all built out there? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a section of greenbelt along the back side -- along -- adjacent to Alpine Point that is dedicated right of way. It's just landscaped at this time. But there is dedicated right of way through that office park to allow the connection of this roadway. Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: It will happen. It's part of the master street map. And, then, ACHD is sensitive to the neighbors and realized that limiting access, so that's why, again, limiting access onto that collector street and allowing that commercial to cut through them was critical to them. We realize that the neighbors have spoke with the city and they are concerned about the cut-through traffic. We all are. There are -- we hear it all the time, there is more and more traffic. This isn't technically cut-through traffic, it's neighbors driving through neighborhoods. But if you can see the design of Alpine Point, I think listening to the neighbors concerns and what they provided in their testimony, people are cutting through their subdivision to get to Eagle Road and there is a route to do that and so ACHD's approach was why not limit the connection of the collector road that feeds that commercial into Wainwright a little bit longer and allow this -- the single family to develop and, then, when time warrants or with the ability to connect that makes sense or ten years, whatever comes first. I would -- if the property develops and it connects. If not, then, ten years we are looking at connecting it is, essentially, what ACHD said. The plan has always been to connect that road through there, the backage road to Eagle Road. So, that's consistent with -- with our Comprehensive Plan as well. We try to keep people -- we try to create these backage roads, so they aren't having to get onto the major arterials and get that interconnectivity, so -- Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Would the applicant, please, come forward. Conger: Bill, do you mind queuing up our deal, please. Madam Chair, Members of the Council, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Yeah. Sorry, I'm trying to get my bearings. I'm a little confused of what we all just kind of went through a little bit. So, let me -- let me run through a few things. It will be repetitive, but, hopefully, we can -- we can get on the same page here. We are definitely glad to be in front of you. As you have kind of heard with our neighborhood we named Delano, we have been on this project for a little over a year and a half for numerous reasons, to -- to get to the point where we are today. Delano is an in-fill project, one of your last there along Eagle Road, that has a mix of residential housing types, consisting of 85 single family homes and up the 96 multi- family homes. This mix is a requirement -- the mix of requirement is per your Comprehensive Plan and, of course, Boise's next door, which were both guiding principles in the land use during our design. As mentioned by staff, our project is bisected by that north-south collector, which is -- is right here in the center. On that east side we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 56 of 98 will start out with, which is our preliminary plat containing the 96 apartment homes, which will require a conditional use permit and will definitely be necessary to be back in front of you again. As you can see on the far right of the screen, we do have cross-access to that piece. That was discussed in the pre-application meetings. That is not a surprise. That has always been a requirement. Fast Eddie's is about where our logo is, the Delano logo in the bottom right corner, pulling all of its approvals and conditions of support, also has a cross-access easement. Not private streets, but cross-access easement. Both of them will come in there when the land to the north develops it will also have cross-access, just like every private developments that have private parking lots, like all your commercial have along Eagle Road. So, cross-access is a condition. If we want to put another condition it is -- it should be a condition and is a condition. And west of the collector road is our single family for sale homes. Shaded in the blue area is our 24 homes -- home sites that we have committed to be single level on our north and west boundary as you can see in the blue. In the tan is the balance of the home sites that are purposefully designed two-story homes. We have centrally located the park area. We have an active amenity park and intentionally placed this park at the focal point of our entry for when everybody comes in. Aesthetically pleasing. As you can see, Delano is magnificently located in-fill property on the Eagle Road corridor, located north and west of Eagle Road and Ustick intersections and just north of Hobby Lobby or Dick's Sporting Goods , if any of that rings a bell. With this -- with this great location our residents are in the middle of shopping, employment, a plethora of restaurants, city parks and -- and much much more for sure. There are five grocery stores. There are five health clubs. And, of course, the Meridian Village within one mile, with shopping, restaurants, and employment. And we are close to two -- actually super close to one and very close to the second of Meridian's largest regional parks that you have in your city. Given our proximity to all these services and amenities, we envision our residents walking, of course, biking and any of that, which helps reduce vehicle trips. It's just an amazing place, which is why I think you have so many neighbors here tonight, it's a great centrally-located place, of course, off the busy Eagle Road corridor, but a great place to live -- live, play and eat, of course. Allow me a moment to kind of walk through the vision set forth -- first by your Meridian city's Comprehensive Plan and, of course, Boise's to the -- to the east of us. The Comprehensive Plan -- and specifically the future land use map is what we look to for guidance, as well as your staff looks to for guidance , when designing our communities. Here you can see our single family homes, which is the blue area, is in the yellow medium density, as well as the homes to the north and the -- the undeveloped large home property to the west and the homes to the west you can see in the yellow medium. To our south on the comp plan is a higher use intensity with its mixed-use regional. So, obvious -- and mixed-use regional designation. And we have Boise city to the east in the white areas, which is mixed use as well. It's very comparable to Meridian's mixed use regional, which is the brown. Boise city to the east and adjacent to Eagle Road, again, with the mixed- use -- so, basically, the Meridian city future land use map calls out for higher intensity uses at Eagle and Ustick Road, as we all know -- as you can see, you know, 80 percent of that developed out and, then, transition -- these more intense uses and intensity of -- all the way down to single family homes, which will be in our blue area and, of course, in the existing yellow with the homes to the north being single family residential homes as well. Kind of now working through the transition, which we start with the comp plan and, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 57 of 98 then, of course, we always have the transition, which is transitions of not only uses, but transition of intensity. It's a challenge. The infills are always a challenge when you -- when you are very near Eagle Road and very near Eagle -- and near Ustick Road, it becomes even more. It is easy to understand that we have the high density projects adjacent to our plan on the south, which you can see the multi-family and the 22 to 30 units per acre. You have got the commercial retail in the pink. You have our project and, then, whether you go west you somehow the multi-family at 22 to 30 units per acre was able to be adjacent to the three units per acre in the green. I'm not sure how that worked out, but I will show you in my next slide how it lives in real life. We will be that transition factor to the existing three units, the home -- or, you know, the homes of the neighbors you will hear tonight. We will be much more gentle than the next slide you will get for the poor people in the green next to the multi-family. So, talking about the multi-family, we have the brand new three story barrack compartments within 15 feet of our southern boundary. This is what was approved less than a year and a half ago. This is what is currently being built today. It's brand new. So, here is the view of our transition on our south boundary and, then, we have to transition to the homes at three units per acre. Our product does that. We are not apartment guys. That's why our single family for sale homes is the right answer to get density that matches up against, quite frankly, this -- this product, which, again, three story 15 feet away from our comp plan designation of medium density, I would call that a little bit of an oversight for the approval that occurred on that and definitely what's under construction . Our task, again, to transition from that orange, which you can see the 22 to 30 is the photo of the three story barrack apartments on -- on our immediate boundary. Through numerous -- however, positive of all that, there is one, through the numerous individual meetings with our five adjacent owners, that's what we come down to, we are abutting five. We agreed to build single level homes in our discussions in exchange for our density impact along our north and west boundary. That is important I think for those neighbors and we will hear if that isn't true or is true with those five neighbors and -- and certainly is what we discussed and negotiated in individual meetings with those adjacent neighbors, as we always meet with our adjacent neighbors. In addition, I think Bill talked a lot about transition , but the staff report is very clear, there are no issues with the transition and very supportive of what we have done for the transition. So, I'm a little -- little unclear on -- on the scope of those comments. Transportation was a topic of discussion with the neighbors in our neighbor meetings and at ACHD during the Ada County Highway District commission approval of the project. Here you can see we have got the intersection where the unmuted is. That's the intersection of Wainwright and Eagle Road, which will be the neighbors you hear tonight. Wainwright Street in the yellow was planned and built is a mid mile collector roadway all the way to that point where my yellow stops on my screen , with a fully signalized intersection, again, where the green unmuted in -- in my screen. I don't know of -- your screen doesn't show that, so I will run a mouse so I can get it up there over the unmuted. So, fully signalized intersection. The collector was planned to gather traffic and get it safely to Eagle Road. That is what Centrepoint will eventually do and that is definitely what -- you know, everything funneling to get to Wainwright. We hired CR Engineering, a traffic engineering firm, who conducted a traffic impact analysis that included -- that is included in your package. You have that in the city packet. And I would like to point out a few highlights from that study. At build out of our entire project, which I think is extremely Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 58 of 98 important to understand, our full build out would be 2023 and possibly even 2024 for the residential product. The next year and a half we would produce lots. Six months after that we would produce a homeowner. So, anywhere from 18 to 24 months before we even start to get homeowners. So, when we come through and see you for approvals, you know, we still have three or four months to get through City Council and get development agreements, then, we have got that first year of trying to build, then, our builder has six months to try to build a house. These impacts -- a lot of other impact fees are being paid by building permits and the highway district is doing things as we go. But at full build-out Wainwright will only be operating at 45 percent of threshold. That's not capacity, because we don't measure what the road can actually do, it's the threshold is how it's measured with the highway district -- Ada County Highway District and what the city, you know, acknowledges. So, 45 percent of threshold at our full build-out. These traffic counts are low and that is one of the reasons -- one of several why ACHD approved this project. I know we all feel roads are really busy and that is why ACHD and the traffic engineer do their studies and -- and they put a science and a facts to it and then -- instead of kind of relying on perceptions or feelings of what the road feels like . This area was planned many years ago as -- as Bill indicated. The local streets converge to the collector and, then, they go to the traffic signal at Eagle Road from Wainwright. That's exactly the scenario -- what the cities -- not just Meridian, but all of them plan and ACHD plan at every mid mile and mile location. During several of our neighbor meetings, however, you know, there was lots of concern about cut through and we have the same thing, we don't want cut through from the commercial coming through these local streets until the collector is ultimately -- which is ACHD already owns this right of way, it will come through this property and hit this collector that we will build that ties into the -- into the other collector. So, point of -- of that is -- we heard the cut-through traffic. We have the same concerns. So, we modified -- modified our plat to be more circuitous. You just cannot drive straight from -- from Dashwood Place to -- to our exit point. We also met with the city and ACHD regarding this topic of cut through and what we -- and kind of working on what we could do to alleviate the neighbors' concerns. We offered up the solution of temporary closing our road, which you can see in the -- in the middle bottom of those red -- red area. That will be temporary closed and not connected to the Centrepoint connector. This was an agreeable solution with ACHD staff and, then, went on and, obviously, was -- with the -- you know, approved by the Ada county commission and, you know, was accepted by ACHD commission as evidenced in their approval of this and they made it a specific condition of this closure in their May 22nd approval. So, that was vetted out very well where that should be, how that should be and we actually fund money to that to -- to take it apart at a future date when that north-south collector is put in. Quickly I will run through our site plan. We had -- we had discussed our single level restrictions in the blue that is self-imposed, but it was self-imposed with negotiations with our five neighbors and working through it. Again, we have our two story product in the tan and the multi-family off to the right in the mixed use area. Running through our neighborhood park with amenities that will function as a court gathering area of our neighborhood, as Bill indicated we have a PlayCraft brand play structure. We have a climbing dome. We have a climbing rock. Bouldering area. Park shade structure. Concrete track. Seating benches. At the end of the day I will show you a couple examples of our parks. We don't mess it -- with our parks -- and this one is no difference -- we have five amenities that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 59 of 98 would qualify per Meridian city code. Code requires one for this project. With our projects we have two and want to put in more amenities to make them living. Our project exceeds code and that is no different and I am closing up now. What you see tonight is a result of a year and a half of planning and collaboration with your staff , Boise, Meridian City Fire Department, Police, Public Works Department, Settlers Irrigation on this particular project and the Ada County Highway District, as well as the neighbors and our own design team. As previously mentioned, this project with that condition of closing up to remove the ability of cross-traffic was approved by the Ada County Highway District Commissioners on May 22nd. We are in complete agreement of your staff report. There isn't a condition that we have an issue with and -- and we are not asking for any exceptions to Meridian City Code. We respectfully request you approve the Delano project tonight in accordance with the staff report. Thank you for your time this evening without a doubt and I would be happy to further clarify any items or answer any questions you may have . Perreault: Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Who said that? Commissioner Seal? Seal: Yes. Just -- can you elaborate on why you didn't go forward with the city of Boise? Conger: Absolutely. Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I will go into that. That is a -- also a unique situation and -- and will take about three minutes, if you will pardon me three minutes for sure. I will go to the slide. So, this area of impact between Meridian -- Meridian and Boise -- first item. I mean we addressed this immediately in our pre- application meetings at actually both cities, with numerous meetings a year and a half ago. I'm going to -- I'm going to jump to my closing sentence and, then, I'm going to jump back into it, because I think what happened is there has been so many meetings on this annexation I think Bill has forgot a few of them and more importantly, the letter from -- from basically your Community Development Director Cameron Arial and your Public Works Director Dale Bolthouse requesting that Meridian take this property. So, I will start with the punchline and, then, go into the facts. I don't know what we are talking about. We wish we would go to Boise and get an approval. We -- we have worked through that. Why -- why we pulled our application and we will explain that as well. So, the facts. The facts are -- and the next parcel shows it better. This area of impact line is the red -- red line. The -- the fact which makes this unique is what I'm calling the Cook parcel is in Meridian and it is in Boise. This -- this isn't Boise's parcel. It's not Meridian's parcel. It's nobody's parcel or everybody's parcel. So, I got to say it -- say it slower, because we had to go meet with Ada county, who would kind of -- is a bit of a jurisdictional top piece of who is -- you know, when you work through area of impacts you have to involve Ada county and their development services folks. This is unique. You can't find one of these every seven years coming into a city. So, there is no city having jurisdiction over this parcel. So, we pulled our application, because we didn't need to ask the question can we go to Meridian. As most of you -- or more than half of you were on this board when I brought them Movado -- the Movado development, big master planned, a hundred acres, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 60 of 98 lots of -- lots of beautiful homes. We brought in 40 acres of Boise to Meridian in that application. That was parcels in Boise that had to go to Boise and get an approval letter. We went to Boise and got that approval letter. This doesn't require that. This is unique. This -- nobody owns this parcel in their area of impact. Now -- so, extremely unique. I don't believe staff has seen this before. We haven't seen this before. Ada county has seen it a couple times. They couldn't even tell me where to reference. But one must keep in mind if you look up the Eagle corridor, it's like a zipper. This line has moved back and forth numerous times, almost solely because of utilities, sewer and water. It -- it's really not because of land planning. So -- so, moving -- moving back one, just a quick reminder -- and I suspect everybody loves looking at that amazing Fast Eddie's th at just got built and you guys did approve it, most of you were probably here. If my mouse works, I'm circling Fast Eddie's, which shows in Boise's area of impact. You guys brought it into Meridian because of utilities. You did that last year. That's -- that's been less than one year. So -- so, for Bill to be saying we are a little worried about utilities and we are -- we are -- we are here because your utilities are here. If you look at the bottom, the -- the red button, the little red -- you -- Bill said we -- we have got to get the other parcel, because we can't stub utilities to nowhere. If this is truly Boise's parcel, you just stub utilities to Boise and that was one of the reasons that we sat down with Boise and sat down with your Planning director and your Public Works, is you just stubbed to, in theory, a Boise parcel, except we believe it's not a Boise parcel, it's a split parcel, so -- and you can also see in the upper corner the other red button is where your water line is. Your two water lines have to connect. You're at the edge of your city and you already have flows and pressure issues and now you don't even have to verify that. Anytime you're on the city's edge you have flows and pressure issues, because you don't have the connectivity. So, if this were to go Boise, which we have a nice apartment complex designed. If you wanted us to go to Boise I guess we would go to Boise. That doesn't make any sense to me. We would have to do sewer lift stations and everything else , because their sewer won't gravity. We have a public works letter. Your staff has a public works letter from the city of Boise stating they can't sewer it properly and this ought to go to Meridian. I don't understand why we are -- we are even having this much of a debated conversation, but if -- if this were to go to Boise, I would have somebody -- maybe the city's tax dollars would have to come grab your stub in Boise to get it to your stub in Meridian to complete your loop, which is the entire mixed-use region area's water main service needs to connect back to the north at Dashwood. So, of all those reasons is why your City Hall, except for Bill, was awful interested in getting this parcel brought in . I will go one step further on this long-winded answer that prior to this application coming in we took these two exact slides to your Mayor and one other leadership individual in your city and said here is the deal, we are not going to get a letter that staff wants that's from Boise saying bring this to Meridian, because we don't believe it needs one. It's a split parcel. It's Meridian's parcel and it's Boise's parcel. Madam Mayor, do you want this to come to your city or do you not want this to come to your city. Here is your Public Works letters. Here's Boise's public works letters that say they can't really service it and Meridian ought to, we have this meeting with the Mayor, I walked out of this building, the other leadership people did come to staff and say this is coming to Boise , so I'm -- tonight I wasn't prepared for the -- I was prepared, but I -- for different reasons, but I'm ill prepared to answer or ask Bill from, what he was directed by one step underneath Madam Mayor, why we are having Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 61 of 98 this conversation that we need Boise's approval, it's a split parcel, you don't need Boise's approval. Did I answer your question? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to ask another question that will probably tie back into that conversation, but staff had requested -- and if you go back to the slide you had just right there, the Eagle View property that's the property to the north, staff had requested that that could be annexed in at the same time and I'm sure you have had conversations with the owner of that parcel, but if you could fill us in on what those conversations looked like, if there was a potential of working with that property to come in at the same time , if that was an option? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I would like to clarify that staff has never asked us to annex the property. Staff wanted us to modify the comp plan. That individual -- and we respect property rights and people's rights. She had no interest in modifying anything on her property at this time. She is a widowed individual with -- with children. My understanding -- and all my -- Mr. Cook, who is the 412, the other green one who is -- is -- is my -- who I bought the land from, is -- is the communicator with her and -- and she is not interested in modifying that. Now, Boise cannot sewer us without lift stations, which don't really work in small areas. You get small grinders, which would be fine when we have to, but when you don't have to -- so, that will come to the same way. I believe staff wanted us to modify a comp plan all at one time . I don't see the challenges in the future of modifying that. There are no -- so, you can see where the orange line is above that green, that is landscaped right now. ACHD owns that right of way. ACHD -- so, the folks you will hear tonight, their developer had to pay a fund -- and it's sitting there. I verified it. And that road, as soon as she develops at some point, will get developed. So, the funds are sitting there. Point of that being there is no City of Meridian water, there is no City of Meridian sewer, there is nothing that needs to get connected up there as you had been told earlier. That's just not the case. It does not exist up in Wainwright. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jim, it didn't answer my question still as to why you didn't go to Boise city council. I understand -- I understand the reasons with the -- with the utilities, but -- and, Bill, if you want to jump in here, too. We still need to get the city of Boise to sign off on this. Right or wrong? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, that is wrong and I will answer that question with something that's a little similar to putting salt in wounds . Why did the City of Meridian in your south boundary go annex 4,580 acres -- and I'm sure I'm a little bit off -- with no plans but to hold off Kuna from gobbling you up. Kuna has jumped your line for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 62 of 98 half a decade or more and that's why you went and did 4 ,500 acres of annexation. So, the answer to your question is no city has to give permission for you to go in to their area of impact. You actually have Star right this second in your northwest corner of McDermott and Chinden, take an application in that's going to modify your area of impact and you can't do anything about it. There are no rules. You saw that. Kuna took you guys. We all know that. Because there is no rule. That isn't a rule. That was -- Bill said it's a state law. I would love an explanation of state law, because Kuna evidently didn't follow it and you didn't sue them. Parsons: Clarification. Thank you. It's -- state law is when I -- when I said -- referenced state law, I'm referencing the city's planned area of city impacts. Under -- when you do that, that's the city's commitment of providing utilities to that property. We have a Title 9 agreement with the county. When we change our boundary of area city impact we have to go through a process with them, as Jim alluded to. We have an adjoining jurisdiction, which we have always played nicely with and we have always worked well together and so in our minds the professional courtesy is to -- if the city of Boise is asking us to hold off and get written documentation for them on this particular issue, then, the professional courtesy is to wait and let's see what -- if that can happen. If Jim could provide something that he doesn't -- they don't need to act on it and -- and say that they don't want to act on this, then, that could suffice as well. But, again, I just share with you what was provided from the city of Boise from their long range planning manager and he's asked you to defer it or deny the application until Boise has a chance to act on the request. What's difficult is typically the city shouldn't be annexing prop -- the way the state law is written is cities can't annex properties in that aren't -- that aren't planned or part of the Comprehensive Plan. This isn't part of the Comprehensive Plan yet. The Comprehensive Plan amendment will add a designation to allow Mr. Conger to annex the property in. So, that's -- there is some timing that has to occur in order for that to -- to occur. So, right now if there isn't a Comprehensive Plan designation applied to this property that's planned for the City of Meridian, we can't annex the property, so that's why the comp plan amendment is critical as part of this request. So, again, the city's going to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan or approve the applicant's request in order to even annex this piece, because, again, we haven't planned for it yet and that's what state law -- that's what I refer to when I said state law, when I'm referring to what the state -- Idaho state statutes say as far as annexing property in. Perreault: Bill, when you spoke with a representative from the city of Boise, did they indicate what that process looks like? Is it a standard public hearing process or is that -- there is something different? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm not sure what their process is. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: They are like us, everyone has to go to Ada county and renegotiate their area of city impact and I know with Caleb -- with us updating our Comprehensive Plan we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 63 of 98 a list of them that we have been holding off on until we can get the new comp plan up and running. So, our boundary will be changing with the adoption of the new comp plan and so I think that was some of the communications to Jim, too. Maybe we can wait, maybe the city could do this, but, again, I think -- Conger: I don't think they communicated that to me. Parsons: Yeah. So, Public Works says they can serve it, I'm not disputing that. They -- if -- I think I communicated that to you. Boise can't serve adequately without engineering involved and we can. So, yes, we are supportive of this coming in if it follows the right process and right now public testimony -- or written testimony from the city of Boise and we feel that the other indication is -- I think that -- correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but that letter also -- it states that the property to the south can be served -- or to the north can be served, too. So, I think that's why -- that's why staff is saying we want both of those properties to be part of this with the property owner's consent. The staff report almost felt like the city was imposing a comp plan amendment on some -- on private property and that's not the impression that we wanted to leave you with. The intent was for the applicant to work with the property owner and get her consent to be included as part of the comp plan amendment and they were open to us. They said they couldn't and there is nothing that could prohibit -- prohibit city staff from accepting the application and that's what they chose to come forward with this evening. Perreault: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: So, Jim, follow up to that with knowing that -- the concern of staff is to play nicely on the boundary with our -- with the city of Boise, why did you elect to withdraw the application and go in front of Boise city council and go through those channels and just come directly to us? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, it was a function of -- there is -- and back to also that question and the question of -- of Madam Chair, is Boise city doesn't have a process either. There is no application fee, there is no specific application to submit and -- and there is -- as -- as Bill indicated, there is no specific, it's just staff says we would sure like Boise's confirmation. Boise's confirmation we have is from public works in writing to get a public city council ruling we didn't feel at some point wa s very productive or wasn't -- and -- and not even an or -- wasn't necessary at all is we -- what happened was is we never started this process with meeting with Ada county. We started this process meeting with both cities, then, once we understand there is a referee in the game, it's just a referee doesn't really have that much authority either, except to approve the moving of them. So, once we got in and had our meetings with Ada county, it became very clear this is extremely unique being a split parcel and there is absolutely no city, one way or the other, that -- that has this particular parcel. You cannot hold a landowner Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 64 of 98 hostage, basically, when you're straddled by two different jurisdictions. So, at that point we did not need Boise city council's approval and at that point was the same time I went and met with your Mayor and one of her head leaders that had this conversation and laid everything out identical to this with our meeting with Ada county and walked through that you aren't going to get a city recommendation from Boise, because we are not going to go through that entire process. It's not necessary. It's a split parcel. So, at that time that senior leader had a meeting with all of us and past that information down. I do not understand the -- the -- the lack of connectivity of this was told and -- and let to be moved forward and I guess we will find out tonight and, then, obviously, I will be in front of City Council and those meetings will be a little bit easier to discuss , because, hopefully, Madam Mayor is sitting there. But there is no reason to go through the city process. It's a split parcel. Very unique. You probably won't see another one in eight or ten years we are being told by Ada county. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just as -- bear with me as a point of illustration, but I had a sister I had to share a room with when I was a kid and we had the line , you know, that you draw through the middle of it and I kind of see this is one of those kind of situations where you got two -- one -- one room that's sitting on two sides of a line and you have got maybe Ada county is the mom or dad in the situation where they come in and they say, hey, you guys are growing out of this space, one of you gets to keep the room, but work it out on who -- who gets the piece. So, I -- I like to follow process, because I think it's -- as cities grow together the more we work together in how our comprehensive plans intersect, the better it is for both communities coming together and so while it looks like, you know, a majority of the parcels in city of Boise's area, I totally see what you're saying, that it comes between both sides and that it is a parcel that's in between the -- the kind of midline zone. I would still feel more comfortable and I think, as staff mentioned, it -- just to follow process and courtesy, be nice to get that letter from Boise that just says, hey, we see this is a unique situation, we understand where the utilities are, we are okay with it annexing into Meridian. So, I think I would feel more comfortable waiting until we had a letter of some sort and whether that's going to council from Boise and asking them to come forward and, you know, put together an agreement of some sort or what their process looks like , it's -- it's a unique situation, so you might have to work through a little bit more process on it, but that's kind of what I look at this as is I feel like it's a -- two sisters sharing room and you got to figure out how to decide who gets the -- the ownership of the room at the end of the new deal. Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I think I would agree with the two sisters sharing a room approach if we were just sitting here having a discussion about a -- a line where the Comprehensive Plan is changed, right, from a mixed use to a multi -- or to mixed use to a -- a single -- single family medium density. One thing I think is important and -- and I think everybody knows here -- and Bill alluded to it, too. There has been lots of changes. These area of impact lines aren't definitive legal surveyed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 65 of 98 documents. So, it's painted with a giant paintbrush and paintbrushes is not even be ing liberal enough. So, your -- your sister sharing a room is a pretty definitive line and, then, I have had one of those and we drew that line . These -- these lines of area impacts are not that line. They are painted with a very broad paintbrush . In this particular case the green area, which is Meridian, ties back up to the green area and cleans it off. Bill is -- Bill is right, at some point when -- when the bigger parcel above the -- the last kind of bigger parcel above the Cook comes in, most likely will be in front of you on a -- a comp plan amendment. But to go -- go to the city, you know, we did not find -- we have letters from Public Works. You know, you -- you start getting planning, you know, departments and really long range planning department's running financial forecasts of what could that city's tax roll be, but I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- if you guys want us to go put these apartments in Boise I guess you will tell me to go put them in Boise. But the process is clear. There is no process. You're not getting a customary letter out of any city saying we enjoy you to take our land. So, that's the one reason we pulled it is you aren't going to get that, because it sets a precedent. So, you're not going to get it in writing. We got a public works and -- from city of Boise and that's as deep as it's going to go. You won't get it. We are not going to go after it. We pulled that application after we realized this split parcel is unique. If this wasn't a split parcel we would probably be having a -- well, we would be having an entirely different conversation. If they could sewer it we would even be having more of a conversation. So, Public Works, you will you have a packet, you have read Public Works. This was always planned for Meridian Public Works, very similar to my Movado that was always planned for -- I mean even though it's not in their area of impact, it was in their sewer calculation. So, we are really beating an item that is -- at the end of the day it's only viable option is to go to Meridian and that's where it needs to go and when it's already partially in Meridian . So, it needs to go to Meridian and we need to move forward with -- with the comp plan amendment. It's not even an amendment, it's a comp plan add. We aren't amending any current comp plans, we are -- we would respect the process that's currently underway with the city that I'm on, Lisa's on. This is an add, not an amendment. But it's got to be called an amendment. Perreault: Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? Conger: And there is your Boise memo. I guess one follow -- Madam Chair. There is the Boise memo saying we can't serve it, it should go to Meridian and just so everybody knows, I have been in the middle of the negotiations with your Public Works Department and Suez on the water, because that was in the Suez's area. They are on the opposite side of Eagle Road or trapped on -- to the north behind commercial buildings. So, we worked through your Public Works, myself, and Suez spent over two weeks finding another parcel that's in your city that you can't service that we , then, are -- actually, I think the process is done, where Suez took that out and Suez already removed this, to my understanding. So, we -- I mean this -- this ship from Public Works and from the Mayor's office, everywhere except Development Services office, this ship has sailed. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 66 of 98 Cassinelli: Jim, another question for you on traffic. You addressed levels of service on Wainwright in that I think with the project you would be at 40 -- Conger: Forty-eight. Cassinelli: -- 48 percent. Conger: Of threshold. Cassinelli: Of the threshold. Is there a threshold -- because I'm not seeing it on ACHD's report here. Is there a threshold for a local street? You have got the entrance to the single-family phase coming in off of Dashwood Place. Is there a level of threshold on a local street? Conger: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: And, if so, where -- where are you at with that in terms of levels? Conger: Yeah. No. Excellent question. Madam -- Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, that -- that is a good question. I did not cover that. So, we are connecting onto Dashwood as -- as you indicated. I think the best way to see that possibly here -- so, there is a threshold -- now, it -- it's measured differently than a collector. The threshold is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Our development, coupled with that short piece of -- of Dashwood would end up being right around 88 0 to 910 trips per day. So, it would be basically -- let's round that up to a thousand. That would be 50 percent of threshold at our full buildout for -- for the record I already indicated our full buildout would be 2023, 2024. I think, Commissioner Cassinelli, the other -- the other point of that would be -- and, again, let me just come down past the barracks -- with our full buildout in 2023, 2024 -- so, three or four years to four and a half , at some point -- that's with every one of our homes going through and at some point when that connects, that -- you know, that will take pressure off and impossibly even lower that. So, as far as a threshold and why it was so easy for ACHD to approve the project, we are under 50 percent of threshold for Dashwood and -- and possibly in the future everybody's opinion is that probably would even get better at some point. When I talked about circuitous -- if I can get this mouse to work. We used to have a -- a road here. So, if you would have came in our development you would have smoked, for lack of a better technical term, really fast up -- up this way and into Dashwood. So, actually, I will credit Caleb Hood for that in several meetings of him and myself trying to figure out a way to mitigate and actually eliminate cut-through traffic. We turned that into a pedestrian pathway and a common drive and so circuitous it is -- you have to go way across the entire port of our project and, then, come back to Dashwood. So, ultimately, at a future buildout we will -- we will hopefully be circuitous enough to not -- not want any cross-traffic, which -- which everybody was comfortable with. But to answer it, it was right around 48 to 47 percent as well. Ironically the same number, but just by chance. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 67 of 98 Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I can ask a follow up to that. Why -- so, why the temporary closure coming out to Centrepoint? Conger: Yes. No. And I -- I wasn't clear enough in my speech. In -- in our neighbor meetings -- numerous neighbor meetings -- and, quite frankly, for myself, if -- if that weren't cut off there -- and this is what -- you know, we took this to the Ada County Highway District and quite a few neighbor phone calls to the Ada County Highway District, rightfully so. There is big concern, so -- so, Centrepoint Way collects to -- to Ustick Road. Connects. Not collects. But connects to Ustick Road. If we don't -- as in ACHD doesn't do a temporary closure, that Ustick Road traffic is going to go through our neighborhood and go through Dashwood, which was the concern of the eight homes on Dashwood and get to Wainwright to bypass any Eagle Road type conundrums or -- or bad traffic. So, it was studied by our traffic engineer before we submitted our proposal, not only to the city, but to Ada County Highway District and, then, Ada county took actually several weeks to -- to take a look at that and come to the conclusion that -- because, you know, no one likes to do a closure or -- a temporary closure. It's very abnormal. This project has two abnormals it would appear. Very unique situation. But, again, in this particular situation to stop the Ustick traffic from coming through and abusing the existing neighbors, which it would, ACHD put this condition on it. We wanted the condition and it has a funding mechanism that we have to prepay for taking it apart, which is no big deal. If that did not answer it ask again and I will give it another shot. I'm not seeing it. Cassinelli: The lights go on. Now, what my -- my thought on that is -- to me it's -- it's backwards. It seems like the temporary closure would be at Dashwood and not Centrepoint. Conger: Yeah. Well, as far as the temporary closure, we ran numerous scenarios with ACHD, with the traffic engineer, and -- and it just came out -- we are taking our single family homes -- the livability of for sale single family product to Dashwood. Our folks go to Wainwright and go to the Eagle Road for distribution and the apartments , which is in the right side of the deal, kind of bifurcates the project at Centerline and goes out -- or Centrepoint Way, not Centerline -- to the south. Now, if you dig into the ACHD packet, Centrepoint Way is running not at capacity and theirs is -- that's a collector. So, I will use capacity more than threshold, because threshold is more of a -- I will use threshold. Is -- is very nearing a threshold capacity. With our apartments added to it it does not exceed it, but it is very close. We thought for a minute that our apartments weren't going to be approvable until the connection all the way up to Wainwright was done. But -- but further traffic study. So, to put, you know, more traffic on Centrepoint, which is near threshold and you have Dashwood at our full buildout in four years that doesn't get to 48 percent, is why ACHD put that closure where they put it. This wasn't done in the middle of the night, this wasn't done on the spur of the moment. Our traffic engineer did plenty of work on it and ACHD ran to their system and put planning on it. So, that program had gone all the way through and that is a condition in the approval of the highway district. So, that is where it is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 68 of 98 Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: Was there any discussion -- so, I'm assuming that street closure opens up when the multi-family is developed. Is there any discussion regarding requiring them to turn left out of that -- the exit -- sorry. Are they going to exit to the north of that -- that section or are they going to exit to the south? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no, that is not how the condition is written that it's going to connect when they build. So, their entry point is right here. And, again, this apartment project will be back in front of you with due course in a conditional use permit. But this temporary closure has nothing to do with the apartments. When the apartments develop they will go south or straight out the bottom on Centrepoint Way. That is their in and their out. So, that is the distance. The -- the for sale family products going to Dashwood and to Wainwright, which are both under 50 percent threshold. The apartments are going to go south, which will very nearly take it to threshold of Centrepoint Way as far as traffic counts go. Perreault: How -- not to get in the weeds too much, but are there actually going to be limitations -- you know, whether it's curbing or -- or signage, so it's going to require them to do that or are they still going to have the option to go through Dashwood? The -- the residence in the apartments. There is the -- there is the intention and, then, there is what people actually do, obviously. Conger: No. Madam Chair -- and -- and I -- I don't know if they are clapping for me or you. Perreault: We really appreciate everybody being here, but let's -- let's give him a chance to explain, so that we are all are on the same page. Conger: Well, Madam Chair, it is one hundred percent disabled by fire emergency gate. So, there is no intention. Perreault: Okay. Conger: It will be impossible. Perreault: Okay. Conger: You would have to have a fire padlock key to get that way. So, there is no intention. It is crystal clear in the ACHD condition -- Perreault: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 69 of 98 Conger: -- and it cannot be driven on. It would -- there is no -- there is no workaround for getting through. Perreault: Okay. Conger: We don't want it anymore -- the neighbors and I are on the same page with cut through traffic and -- there is no way we are not. Perreault: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Any additional questions for the applicant? We appreciate everyone's patience. As we ask -- as we keep asking these clarifying questions I think it helps everybody to get a clear understanding of everything. So, thank you. I think that's everything from us for the moment. Conger: Thank you. Perreault: We will start taking public testimony. Conger: Sounds great. Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have a Malissa Bernard who would like to testify on behalf of Dashwood Place. Bernard: Hello. My name is Malissa Bernard. I live at 4025 North Dashwood Place and I'm primarily representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place, since we are the -- the street that's going to be taking the biggest hit for the team, so to speak. It doesn't need to be this way. We have tried many times to persuade Jim and Devco to maybe to see things our way and that's what most of my discussion is going to be about. Alpine Point has 211 homes. We are less than three homes per acre. We have 237 residents that signed a letter stating we are against this application. Forty-six items of written testimony. We attend meetings. We have a much higher than average attendance rate . We call. We write. We show up. We chose our homes carefully. The city and ACHD had it signed properly for Dashwood Place. There is no -- this will be continued in the future. Also ACHD did not reveal the full collector plan online until 2018 regarding the master street map materials for this -- for the collector that's going to be the Wainwright-Centrepoint collector. Our neighbors care for one another and our homes are our havens. North Dashwood Place was created as a stub street to volunteer parcel in 2005 by the City of Meridian, because the parcel is landlocked. Centrepoint Way stub did not exist at that time. It did not extend north until these apartment -- Paddock was built. Dashwood has never had a sign for the future extension as I have explained and this is verifiable through Google Street Maps 2011. You can see all the other stub streets are signed. This one isn't. With eight neighborhood connections we will have plenty of future traffic with a commercial collector at Centrepoint Way and Wainwright and when Rogue River and Conley connect we will have that access point. The Devco plan is proposing -- will have at least one thousand vehicle trips per day on Dashwood and with our other connections we are going to have enough. We really don't need this as well. Here are the traffic patterns that might be a little better explained of what's going to happen in the future. As Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 70 of 98 you can see where it's going to cut through the Cook parcel, then, through the Wong parcel. It's going to connect with Wainwright. As you can see the Ketlinski parcel, which is currently -- it's actually been on the market and it went off the market after two days. So, I assume it's in the pending process at this time. So, as you see the Conley is going to connect over to the Champion Park neighborhood. I would propose extending Jasmine as a vital street for this area to help kind of control the density and the traffic patterns and, then, as you can see how we are going to experience stuff up north to south at three different points. We have had alternate plans that we have presented to ACHD and also to Devco. Here is one where we make the emergen cy access point at ours. Also Centrepoint Way can be continued all the way up. You could have two streets into the subdivision without involving our -- our subdivision and as you can see this also helps with the circuit for construction traffic as well. This will keep the construction traffic off of Dashwood. He has flow. He doesn't have any cut-through traffic. Really, all problems are solved with this plan. Here is another plan that's been submitted to Devco. This was shown at a neighborhood meeting. He said the city would never go for this. ACHD wouldn't go for it. We are proposing that this -- the northern portion be a higher density, more transitional nature to our neighborhood. Also, it has an emergency access towards the park. As you can see, that's going to complete the circuit for any emergency services and it would be a higher density to the south. So, that is a good transition to the apartment Paddocks. There have been three neighborhood meetings to date and our requests for plan modification and reduction in traffic impacts have been largely ignored . As you can see, there has been very little deviation from the original plan. I would ask that you, please, deny or defer this application. Commissioner Holland's condition of continuance, that Devco was to work with neighbors, has been ignored. Devco has had the room and capability to modify. This is on paper for stone, for concrete, for landscaping. We are invested in our neighborhood. It's still on paper. We can change this. The Delano application should be denied or deferred until his ducks are in a row. The applicant has not done due diligence to complete the proper annexation process. The plans are pieced together using the best use of engineering softwa re, not the best fit for surrounding neighborhoods. Density is not complementary to R -- R-4. Please consider two separate parcels, a lower density to the north and, then, a higher density to the south. In fact, 30 Delano homes would fit onto our parcels. We have one hundred -- I think one hundred thousand square feet in our parcels. That would fit 30 homes on our dirt. The density is not -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. The streets are too skinny. I would increase the width for resident parking on both sides of the street. Parking options on Jasmine and the park is not the answer. Also lots are too narrow. Increase the size to 30 to 40 feet minimum width, 4,000 square foot lot minimum, please, for the R-15 portion and consider a 6,000 square foot minimum at the R-8. It is stingy on usable green -- green space. I mean most of the space for the green space for your ten, 11 percent is a buffer zone that no one can play on, no one can really use. It's just basically unusable space. We are already poised to be high-density resident heavy on South Wainwright. Please designate R-15 for the Cook apartment pad. It's still fund -- it's still fits into the mixed-use regional. It doesn't have to be R-40 and as we know we are already reaching capacity on our streets. A thousand extra vehicle trips on Dashwood is a little heavy and also Dashwood Place would equal heavy construction traffic. Construction and trades to the south entry only. With violations resulting in incremental fines. Please do not use our streets. Incorporate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 71 of 98 the stipulation into the DA. Devco is noncommittal regarding our request for a construction plan. A construction traffic plan. And it is not harmonious and is not complementary to our existing neighborhood. Modification and alteration should be implemented before the first shovel hits the dirt . Alpine Point, specifically Dashwood Place and Wainwright, need to bear the weight of poor planning merely because it was the last neighborhood on the block. We are solving most of the problems for the city block for all the new development. Furthermore, with our front facing yards and it's overconnection, Alpine Point streets are poised to become the de facto heavy use residential and commercial collectors for the majority of the city square mile. Not to mention the cut through of choice of many. And, then, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. And I would like to thank our neighbors, too. And thank you to the planning department. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. Bernard: Do you have any questions? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I just want to say that instead of just coming up here and saying not in my backyard and I'm opposed to this because of everything, I am very impressed that you took the time to lay out well thought-out solutions. So, thank you for doing that and not just coming up and -- and complaining. It's nice for us to hear that I think. I don't know if I speak for everybody, but that's -- thank you for that. Bernard: Well, thank you. And I would also like to ask my neighbors to raise their hands who is in agreement. Thank you for your support. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any other questions? Perreault: No. Thank you very much. Bernard: Thank you. Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have a Frank Marcos. Perreault: Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. Before you begin I understand you're the homeowner's association president for Alpine Point? Marcos: Correct. Perreault: Everyone who on -- who Frank is speaking for would you, please, raise your hand. Okay. So, all of you are -- are not coming forward and -- Marcos: I don't need that many. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 72 of 98 Perreault: -- and giving public testimony. Marcos: I won't be here that much. Perreault: Okay. Marcos: I won't be here that long. Perreault: Just to make that clear. All right. Thank you. Marcos: I appreciate that. Perreault: Please proceed. Marcos: Madam Chairman -- Chair Woman and Commissioners, my name is Frank Marcos. 2580 East Lacewood Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I am the HOA president, have been for a little over a year, and I am a resident in Alpine Point for the past six years. So, I have been present for a lot of the development, since we built and purchased our home. Let me just say first off , that as a community we are not against development of that property. We know something is going to go there and we have known that for a long time. However, what we are against is the way it's been pushed upon us with almost no communication back and forth. So, that's been our biggest contention is that we have tried to deal with the developer. There were three meetings and they were one-sided and very contentious, I must say. Mostly from Mr. Conger's point of view, but we stuck with it, we were there and we tried to get through it. And I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm just stating the facts. What I want to talk about today in regards to this development -- or any development in that area -- has to do with traffic and I know that the traffic is a big issue that all of you deal with, whether your own subdivisions or what you're dealing with here, we recognize that. What we want to recognize is that something needs to be done at some point for the amount of traffic and the speeders that are in subdivisions. We all have that. We know that. We also know that our current system is not good where we are with -- with signage and stop signs or lack thereof . We feel that that development is only going to create more of a problem for Alpine Point and some of the solutions that Malissa provided could eliminate some of that extra traffic that won't just come from the Delano Subdivision, it will come from the Brickyards and the shopping as well. So, that -- that was in trips per day that were quoted. Did not take into consideration the Brickyard apartments and the shopping center, which will open up when Centrepoint opens up. So, I just wanted to make that clear there. We have three roads that -- that are going to be open in the future -- very near. Rogue River, Centrepoint and Dashwood. And with those three, they are going to create a collector road neighborhood called Alpine Point. I understand the collector road you want to take traffic off of arterials and kind of funnel them to other areas in arterials, but to put collector road traffic through a neighborhood with front-facing yards, front-facing driveways, kids riding bikes, people walking all hours of the day and night, is not -- can you put that back, please? Thank you. Is not conducive to what Alpine Point was designed for. So, what we are hoping that you will see by some of these graphs here, too, that the traffic issue is going to be a big problem, whether Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 73 of 98 Conger develops it or somebody else, so we are looking to see if you guys have some ideas in Planning and Zoning that you can help out. Alpine Point, 211 homes, over 50 percent of our homes have major RV bays for boats, for campers, large vehicles. Within these neighbor's garages, when they pull these things out they become a problem for just normal traffic and during the summer months it's very common to see neighbors have their RVs out there preparing them for trips or when they come home and it could be a week that they are out there on the street getting these things ready. More traffic, more speeders is going to be a problem for that part of it. In addition, it's an estimate, but about 75 percent of our residents have either kids or grandkids that frequent our neighborhood, that use our pool, use are playgrounds. We have two. Use our basketball court and use our common areas to play. Our streets to walk, to ride. So, we have a high usage of kids and adults that use our neighbor -- are our neighborhood streets that, in essence, are going to become a collector road neighborhood. So, that is a very strong element for us to bring to your attention when you do eventually review this application . Current traffic flow. Eagle Road we -- I'm not going to go there. We all know how bad it is. But by virtue of what Jim said with that light at the midpoint at Wainwright, it has not created a pass through for Alpine Point. The light was a curse and a godsend. We loved it because, then, we could get out and turn. But now what's happening is on -- on Eagle Road people don't want to go to McMillan to go west . They come right through our -- and I'm -- the mouse I don't know if it's going to help, but they are going to come through Wainwright, they are going to go up to Rosepoint to Lacewood and to McMillan or they are going to go all the way down on Wainwright to Lynnwood to Camas Creek and up. That's what's happening now. ACHD has been out, they have done studies, their studies today versus years ago has shown a tremendous increase in traffic. It's only going to get worse with more and more development. Current stop signs. I know most neighborhoods don't have stop signs, but they are put in places strategically to make people stop and slow down. The stop signs that we have, they are not in the areas that are slowing down any of our traffic currently, let alone with the future development that we are going to get. So, I just wanted to point this out that as you can see the -- the upper left portion of Alpine Point, which is a major cut through to get to McMillan and to Settlers Bridge to get to Locust Grove, there is nothing to slow traffic down. Zero. And people are -- are speeding through our neighborhood much too fast for safety of our neighbors and our kids . We have three speed signs in Alpine Point. They are hard to find them on here, but they are also hard to find when we are driving. Up in the upper left you will see there is a speed sign up there off of McMillan, right when you turn onto Camas Creek. That's one. The second one off of Eagle Road -- 50 feet off of Eagle Road there is a sign that says 25. For about 15 years -- or, no, excuse me, about ten years that's all Alpine point had. I worked with ACHD to try to get more signage. We got one more sign -- as you can see not too far from the corner of where the -- the common area is, but in doing so ACHD said that Meridian City Code is 25 miles an hour. We had 20 miles an hour posted. At 20 miles an hour traffic was seriously a lot slower than it is today at 25. It is posted 25, people will go 30 and 35. If it's posted 20, they will go 25, maybe 30. So, part of our problem is the lack of signage and the fact that it was boosted up to 25 . Existing bus stops. Alpine Point has two current bus stops dropping off elementary school age and middle school age kids in our subdivision. One is near the major road of McMillan near Camas Creek and a lot of those kids that get dropped off there, yes, they live in Alpine Point, many of them go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 74 of 98 other ways. They are not all Alpine Point residents. And the other one that you can see there just north of our pond and our pool area is the second bus stop that drops off a lot of kids as well. The majority of those kids do filter into Alpine Point. Oh, if I may, there is no signage for bus stops. Children playing, bus stop, zero. So, we are just seeing buses come in, dropping kids off. Some kind of signage that says there is a bus stop ahead or children playing, something might be kind of nice. ACHD has not responded to that request. Speed cushions. And the reason I bring this up -- currently we have none. There are methods to mitigate traffic and speeding. We know that. There are speed bumps and speed humps and there is also the new thing that's out there that's hitting a lot of communities, including the valley, called speed cushions and speed cushions are -- are -- are supported by our first responders, our fire department, because their vehicles -- their engines and their trucks can run right through there, not losing any response time to get where they need to go, but it will stop your cars, because your car axles are wide enough to go over them. If we had speed cushions located in some strategic spots within Alpine Point I know that our traffic -- two things. One, it will slow down, but, two, I think more people will use the collector road to get to Eagle and go out , because they don't want to deal with us and that's the intent of a collector road, to get them back onto those major arterials, not cut through neighborhoods. Future roads. I mentioned that. The one on the left, that's Rogue River, that parcel has just been -- its in pending, so we fully expect to see somebody developing that. That connector there, that road, has no front- facing homes. So, unlike Dashwood, those homes are not facing Rogue River. So, we know there will be traffic coming in and out of there. The middle one is Rogue River that we have talked about and don't need to go any further. The other line is Centrepoint and, again, that's something that you have all talked about and you understand. The thing I want to bring up here is those three roads are going to lead to Wainwright and Wainwright is -- should not be a collector road, but it will be -- it will be -- it will be a de facto collector road sending everything on through. And I'm almost finished, Madam Chair. The intersection here that I have got circled, currently it is not sufficient to handle the traffic that is coming in and out of Alpine -- Alpine Point and the pass-through traffic and what I mean by that is people that wait there that want to go north on Eagle or south on Eagle or do a crossover to get to Records, the line that -- there is none of lines there -- are lanes there, because of an island that's in there. If you look at this one, there are two islands that the developer had built for aesthetic reasons. When this collector road gets opened up cars are going to backup on Wainwright significantly causing problems for people to get out onto Eagle Road. Desired outcomes. And this is my last slide here. Appreciate that, Madam Commissioner. Desired outcomes as we talked about. Deny his application. Another one would be to defer until further planning and discussions with Devco can be made. Commissioner Holland in her closing -- or her motion at the May 2nd meeting did say specifically that it would be nice if the developer and the Alpine residents could get together and talk about things. It's in your motion. He did not reach out to us at all. Zero. So, if you defer it, hopefully you can, as you did with the one previously tonight, is mandate some type of communication that we will document and provide to you . Thirdly, require Devco to allocate some kind of money into an escrow account, which Mr. Conger has already said he is doing for that stub road, but we would like to include some money for things that instead of the City of Meridian having to pay for, let the developer pay for it. Speed cushions. Stop signs. The speed signs. Bus stop signs. Redesigning that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 75 of 98 Wainwright to Eagle exit, so that it can handle more cars. And one last thing is perhaps an implementation of a right turn only on Wainwright from Centrepoint. There is no reason at Centrepoint, if it's really designed as a collector road, has to filter through Alpine Point. Right turn only, get to Eagle, let them do what they need to do at that point . So, we believe that it -- again, we are okay with development, but let's do it right and depending on where you go, we would like you to consider some options to have Devco provide some monies into -- into an escrow account to help pay for those items. And that's all I have at this point. Perreault: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Again, we appreciate a very thorough presentation. Okay. Who is next? Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I have a Kenneth and Kathleen Clifford. Clifford: Seems like a long walk up. My name is Kenneth Clifford. Kenneth J. Clifford. It's in Alpine Point at 4523 North Rosepoint Place, Meridian. I'm -- I'm requesting that the Commission deny this application tonight, because many of the issues previously noted have not yet been resolved and the applicant did not comply with the Commission's directive to work with the neighbors to resolve these issues. From the minutes of the May 2nd meeting of the Commission, page 39, Commissioner McCarvel noted that she would support moving the -- the -- a paraphrase if you don't mind for sake of time. She states: I just think there was -- besides ACHD, I mean there is other things that are flagged in here that probably need some working out and when I read -- or when I read this just -- I just thought, you know, a lot of this -- or a lot of it's probably not ready yet. On page 40, Commissioner Holland states: I think I agree there is -- there is some challenges from what we read in -- from public testimony that was in the staff report th at was in the application packet and she goes on and says so I am hoping that if we, you know, continue this application on July 18th , that maybe the applicant can work through some of those concerns ahead of that meeting with the neighbors that are here a nd care and are passionate about community. And on to say: And, hopefully, they can make the adjustments to their site plan if needed. Followed up, then, was a -- was the motion that moved to -- to continue file number H-2019-0027 for the Delano Subdivision and Devco development to the hearing date of July 18th for the reason of needing to have the AC H report -- ACHD report and also -- also work with the neighbors on some of the challenges presented in a written testimony received and that this application -- it goes on. The motion carried six yes, one absent. No contact has been made by the applicant to work with the neighbors since that meeting. We haven't heard anything from them and those issues still remain unresolved. I estimate that that section of land between Alpine Point and Hobby Lobby is to be a -- somewhere between one-eighth and one fourth quarter square mile. One-eighth of one quarter square mile. That's pretty small. I have heard projections that the population for that small section of land could swell to nearly 3,000 residents if the proper -- if the zoning that's being considered really actually goes through. The population of McCall, Idaho, is currently reported to be 3,351 residents. I'm not as concerned about how many people will be living next to my neighborhood , as I am about how many of those people will be forced to drive through my neighborhood . If North Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 76 of 98 Dashwood Place is opened it will become a commercial collector. Instead this traffic should funnel to the actual commercial collector Centrepoint already in the plans for future development. I'm not against growth, I am for it. I am not saying not next to my neighborhood, I am saying not through my neighborhood . Don't turn North Dashwood Place into a commercial collector. Please deny this application tonight. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Way: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I have a Sherry Garey. Okay. Sorry. Perreault: I'm sorry, ma'am. We have to have you speak into the microphone, because this gets puts into written minutes, as well as it's videotaped, so -- Gerry: Be glad to. Perreault: Please state your name and address. Garey: Okay. My name is Sherry Garey. I am a homeowner and a resident in Alpine Point. I live at 4563 North Camas Creek Way. And in the interest of time, I would be delighted to just go ahead and withdraw my presentation at this time , because it isn't anymore substantive than what our good neighbors Frank Marcos and Malissa Bernard have already provided you, which this is just more supporting documents. I do have my notes written if you want to accept them or I can just completely withdraw. Perreault: Anything that you have in writing if you wouldn't mind giving it to the clerk and we can definitely upload that. Garey: That would be great. Perreault: And that will be available for City Council to review as well. Garey: Okay. If that's perfectly acceptable I would be happy to do that at this time. Perreault: Thank you very much. Garey: Okay. Thank you. Way: Greg Walker. Perreault: Okay. Walker: Well, my name is Greg Walker. I'm at 2403 East Honeywood Court, Meridian, Idaho. Madam Chair, Commissioners, I would just like to point out that I think Alpine Point is one of those neighborhoods that is a victim of kind of some not very clear plan ning. Our stub streets stub into those areas and the Centrepoint connection is a bit weird, because if we look at the Wainwright, I -- I think Mr. Conger did a great job of kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 77 of 98 sleight of hand here, because that yellow zone that he shows as a collector, that is the extent of the collector. Once you go to the west on that -- on that road it becomes a front- facing street. Every single street in Alpine Point, other than that one section that he showed and highlighted yellow, is -- actually has front-facing driveways. So, they are not collectors per the normal collector where you have a drive through the neighborhood. So, when he mentions that the numbers are way lower than 2,000 or 2,000 is the number for a collector, that's fine, but there is going to be traffic that goes the other way down Wainwright towards McMillan and he did not bother to mention the numbers of the traffic on that. Now, my real issue here is what this does over time; right? Once we connect Centrepoint, there is going to be a huge amount of traffic coming down those other lines towards McMillan. You have got the three connections being made and I just wanted to point that out. I think to the most aggressive intent this has been covered, so I don't want to belabor this, but I do think you need to look at that Wainwright collector and understand that it really is not a collector, there is only -- it only collects traffic one direction towards Eagle Road. Everything else is diffused through neighborhoods where people are right on their driveways. So, that's all I have. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Way: Jim Austin. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Way: Patricia Pitzer. Pitzer: Hi. Patricia Pitzer. 2703 East Wainwright. And I am going to cut this down real short, just down to the parts that have not already been covered. I think this subdivision is premature. I think we need to have the infrastructure in place prior to the subdivisions going in, not after the fact. I think that having Dashwood become the commercial collector, instead of Centrepoint collecting that first and, then, stub out, I think Malissa did a great job as an alternative and -- and Commissioner Cassinelli making the observation that it's backwards as far as the temporary stub out should be. Thank you for your time and I request that this be denied. Perreault: Thank you. Pitzer: Thank you. Way: That's it. That's all. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward again and address the concerns. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger back at -- back in front of you. As far as neighborhood meetings go, we definitely put a large value in those with any one of our projects. As a -- is a point to meet with the adjacent HOAs and large Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 78 of 98 groups and as important to meet with the -- the completely affected next door very much adjacent neighbor. Again, you had heard we met over three times on the large HOA meetings -- numerous individual meetings. Our modify -- our -- our site plan was actually bettered -- you know, we call modified or better more than three times throughout that process. Some making it not circuitous, some we had to modify, you know, our own homes against -- against three story product behind us and single level concessions to the north. So, it wasn't the same plan at the start. It never is the same plan at the start as by the time you get to the end. As far as -- as meeting and everything, we -- we got to the -- to about -- the one item that we all are on the same page with and that is is nobody wants cut-through traffic, neighbors or ourselves. With that that's when we kicked in our gear since the deferral and actually slightly prior to the deferral and worked tirelessly to get with ACHD and get that road with the temporary closure in it, which for the record isn't as easy as it sounds. ACHD does not like any part of temporary road closures . These are public roads, these are not private roads, they are paid by taxpayer dollars, not by the people that -- yes, we all pay for the streets in front of our house, but if I was only paying for the street in front of my house it would be potholed, because it takes the entire village and city and Ada county to have enough funds to maintain these public streets that -- that -- that should be -- be used by the public streets. Transition as -- as I talked about, we -- we get the transition discussion. We are usually not wanting to hear words we are harmed by transition. I'm going to use the word we are harmed by transition. We have the barracks on one side of us and we are working our way all the way to the other end in and to bring up one slide on -- on transition -- bear with me for one second. It's our north boundary. It's a rather busy slide, but I will -- I will go through it fairly quick and detailed. The Alpine Point you did here are very friendly to trailers and RVs and that nature, which is -- which is why that neighborhood is so popular. Our interface -- the blue areas are the yards. On the right very -- very neat couple that actually has two of our homes backed up to them. What -- why we conceded to the single level is the massing of the home isn't large and, you know, sure, you could go delete one or two or three lots along a boundary or change the whole project, which at one point we thought we lost our builder for this and we were going to do bigger, but it didn't make sense because, then, those all had to be two story homes. So, the single level restriction is -- is what I think -- and we had one neighbor, which she spoke on the far left, you did not have any of the other neighbors speak and we think that's a testatute of -- of our commitment to the single level, obviously. But that was give and take on both sides. That isn't just me. If you look at item A and go to the right side of your screen and see A, that house is -- is all -- RV garage, of course, but, then, it's got the RV trailer, the camp trailer and -- and utility trailer as you can see that lists to us. If you go to item B they have a little bit of blue side yard against one of our homes, maybe a quarter of acre less, but if you go to item B on the right side of your screen, it is an RV trailer, it's an RV pad, it's a wonderful neighborhood that was produced for parking RV trailers, which means I and my people have to actually look for the trailers, we are not complaining about that, but it's not a livability function for them, it's their RV trailer. If you go to C there is -- you can see the blue yard and, then, C at the bottom of the screen, they actually added an additional RV type garage on that area. So, it's very nice. I'm not picking on it. It's actually amazing. Item D, bottom left part of your screen, I'm a little more -- misunderstanding of this. But it's actually got a paved trailer parking where there can be two side by side. There is a little bit of blue yard that comes to it, but Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 79 of 98 it would be adjacent to their pad that they were able to asphalt up and park all their trailers. Yes, we have a neighbor on the far west side, she did speak. It has a great house, it has a backyard through our basically one -- one home. But, again, we don't take restricting ourselves to single level lightly. That was done with negotiations with individual neighbors, not done flippantly, done for specific reasons to be homogeneous and figure out any -- I mean we are an in-fill parcel. I have got a three story barracks apartment behind me and I have got to get to here. We understand that. This isn't the first time we have been in that situation and we very much value the ability to transition and not have four of the five neighbors in front of you just not wanting to -- to really string us up by our heels, because -- because of that restriction that we put on oursel ves. I think coming back to traffic, the facts and the science of -- of the traffic, both Wainwright and Dashwood function at less than 50 percent of these public roads. Dashwood itself -- I looked at the counts again. It will be right around 890 trips at our full build out and, again, our full build out is as we know is not tomorrow, it's closer to 2023 and you could go either side of that, but probably 2024. But there will be more than half by 2023. I definitely will concede to that. So, again, we are just -- there was a tremendous amount of effort done with the highway district to get the road closure and -- and get it -- to get it where it is today and kind of working through. And, again, that was science. That was traffic engineers and the -- the threshold counts going south and looking at the threshold counts going north . A taxpayer using Dashwood Place doesn't necessarily have any -- any more or any less right than the taxpayers in the rental homes that are that threshold capacity going sout h. So, the highway district looked at this. Our traffic engineer looked at this. We are literally at 890 of a threshold against 2,000. So, it's not 50 percent. Wainwright collector -- I did say the collector ended at the end of my yellow. I was not trying to play any sleight of hand for sure. That is a mid mile collector that stops at that yellow line and goes to the traffic intersection of Eagle Road. So, we are very well -- well aware of that. ACHD is very well aware of that. Our traffic engineer did not have to do much traffic analysis or calculations on it, because ACHD -- I think because of the actor -- active neighborhood group already had a mountain of traffic counts and they had been -- already been analyzing this neighborhood. You hear -- continue to hear we are worried about the apartments in Centrepoint. We are worried about the apartments in Centrepoint until it connects up to Wainwright. That is why we worked so hard with ACHD to get that closure where you see it today. That is why we went in front of the Ada County Highway District and commission and got the approval at that location with the condition that was written by staff and approved by the Commission. You know, we meet all of your codes. We have worked through a long, long process, which typically a long process, you know, to us means more things got vetted out. This isn't something that just started six and seven months ago. There is no need to vet out further items in time. I believe our issue became about the closure and things of that nature. As far as density, we have done as great a job as anybody can do going from the three story apartments to get down to the -- to the homes, you know, basically the five actual homeowners on that adjacent boundary. Streets were all analyzed. You know, I think the -- we share the same concern on cut- through traffic and I will stop it there. I will actually -- make sure I didn't have any other items. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 80 of 98 Perreault: One question for you. Is it a requirement -- city requirement in your understanding that for connectivity purposes you have to connect to Dashwood? There is not a possibility of creating an emergency access there as the -- one of the homeowners suggested in Alpine Point and having the -- there was a drawing that was -- that was presented by Mrs. Bernard about having the -- the official entrance to the subdivision on the north of -- north side of Centrepoint and coming in -- really entering in the subdivision from the east, rather than from the south. Can you -- I actually wouldn't mind if -- if Bill could pull up -- excuse me. If Bill could pull up her presentation and show that, because I thought it was -- not that one, the one above it. Yeah. I thought that was a potentially good alternative. If you would share your thoughts on that. I imagine that you have seen this and wondering what your -- your thoughts are. There is a possibility that this would not be permitted as far as connectivity goes, so that's -- Conger: Yeah. And I have got this memorized and, yes, Madam Chair, I have seen this and we saw that at one of our neighborhood meetings for sure in a discussion during the meeting, but, then, a discussion after the meeting as well. So, as far as -- if I could go back to my slide for one second and, then, kind of show what -- what's the reality of -- of the back end of -- of going out the south -- thanks, Bill. So, Centrepoint that -- that, you know, you can see our project laid in on Centrepoint going out to Ustick Road. So, you have this multi-family project, it was approved again a year ago that's -- probably a year and a half ago that's under construction. Then a little further -- I apologize. Right before Ustick you actually have some pretty nice rentals, but they are like two story in -- in elevations and actually very very well done that are on this. So, what the analysis came out of in that ACHD packet that you have, the trip count on Centrepoint is nearing threshold. So, the common break was to keep multi-family on Centrepoint and keep the single family for sale going north. Our folks are using Hickory just like they are -- not Hickory, but the collector road. Perreault: Wainwright. Conger: Thank you. Wainwright. We have to do charades to get it. I apologize. Point of that entry -- now, there -- there are two things that -- that go -- coincide with that. We -- we have our entry road to Centrepoint, which is the temporary closure at the point that that, then, connects over with the next outstanding parcel Centrepoint will be connected -- obviously, as I said before, that will be removed. At that point, you know, we -- we think we have done enough restrictions to drive through our neighborhood that they -- that the circuitous will keep the cut through away. But as far as the entry point, that Dashwood, with eight homes on a public street that the taxpayers are paying, right, has 80 -- 80 trips on it -- it's got more than that. My math isn't good this time of night. But the point of that being when we are done in this temporary environment , they will still be less than 47 percent of threshold. It's a public road. It's stubbed to the property. All your other streets were cul-de-sacs that were not stubbed to the property. This neighborhood is designed and -- and able to go up that way. We have gone through the transportation authority on that and picked the number of homes that would go to the -- very much under capacity Wainwright and Dashwood and pick the apartment project that would go out to Ustick and as I noted, we had a scare halfway through the process that the traffic counts were too Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 81 of 98 great on Centrepoint and this -- this would have to wait for the connection, which did -- actually panned out to not be true, but it took additional traffic engineering and everything with -- with the highway district. But we stand with the Ada County Commission condition of where they purposefully and engineerily placed that closure. Perreault: So, if I'm hearing you correctly, if there were to be no exit on Dashwood, then, it would -- and everyone were to use Centrepoint out to Ustick, it would put that street over -- over capacity. Conger: Madam Chair, I'm saying it is near threshold. I'm not saying it would be over, but it is very near threshold. Perreault: Including all of the -- the individual lots and the multi-family. Conger: Well, we never ran it with the individual lots -- Perreault: Okay. Conger: -- and the highway district did not run it, so I would be speculating to say it's over. I -- I'm still not sure it would be over, but it's near threshold with the apartments. Perreault: Okay. Okay. Is there any additional questions for the applicant while he's up here? Cassinelli: Yes, Madam Chair. Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If it's -- if blocking that southern access because you're concerned about the -- exceeding the threshold or getting awfully close to it on Centrepoint, what changes that when that opens up? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, one clarification. We are not blocking it because we are worried about the capacity of Centrepoint. We are blocking that road, because we and the neighbors do not want the cut through until Centrepoint is in its final location. So, the -- that -- we are not trying to preserve Centrepoint. I don't think I alluded to that. That closure is there for a different reason than cut-through traffic. The -- the question to yours is how will that get better in the future. At some point -- and this is what I think you continually heard tonight, which is outside of my purview of this project -- 50 percent of the traffic concerns I heard tonight from the neighbors are when Centrepoint connects Wainwright is going to be much busier, that everybody will be enjoying this less than 48 percent of threshold. That road is going to run at threshold that's what it's designed to do. So, right now all those apartments that you guys already previously approved, every one of them has to go to Ustick, so that road currently is not functioning as it was designed until the punch through, because half go north, half go south or what -- I mean -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 82 of 98 Cassinelli: They can get out to Eagle Road as well. Conger: They can -- Cassinelli: Alongside of Hobby Lobby? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, they can work their way to Eagle Road and take a right. That is correct. They will only go -- as I alluded to, if they are going north they will go -- they -- they will have to go to Wainwright, which will change the distribution and -- and, again, I'm paraphrasing, all my highway district and engineer -- traffic engineer meetings, but when you have a current dead end that's temporary, the road functions differently. Every car is going -- going that direction. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. Cassinelli: I'm sorry. Perreault: Going back to my original question, then, regarding Dashwood and the requirement for that to connect, is that -- is that a city requirement for connectivity or is that something that you are hoping to have happened to redistribute traffic in both directions, rather than just having the entire development go south on to Centrepoint? I want to understand that. Conger: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Bill can answer this as well, but you do have policies in your Comprehensive Plan and also kind of drill down a little further in your code that require connectivity, which is healthy for neighborhoods, so you don't get everybody on one street and you also have the Ada County Highway District that has a common policy near your -- your -- your goals, which is the connectivity. So, the connectivity to Dashwood is -- is not an option. Perreault: Okay. That's what -- that's what I was trying to get answered, is it an option or not an option. Conger: It's not an option. It's a requirement. Perreault: That's fine. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly when we stub roads through properties it's always the city's policy to have those extended. So, the plan before you this evening shows it extended. I think as far as neighborhood connectivity, we are always in support of that. We have many examples throughout the city where Council has not required stub streets to be extended and its ended up biting the city in the long run, because of what Cassinelli said in the beginning on some of the other projects is these decisions come back and you said say, well, why did we approve it that way, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 83 of 98 because now we are creating a bigger situation later down the road. So, I don't disagree with Jim's logic. I think blocking off traffic cutting through residential neighborhoods from that mixed-use development to the south makes a lot of sense at this point, until we get it connected to the collector road -- with a collector road. When we met with ACHD to discuss this project and restricting that access, as Jim has shown you this evening, they told us that that collector road will be at threshold at some point. It's -- it's nearing capacity. So, there is that -- that road will carry some trips at some point and we -- but we -- but what we don't want to do and what we have kind of conceded to and it hasn't come up in tonight's discussions, but by gaining that access off, we are still forcing people in the surrounding neighborhoods to go out on to Eagle Road, go out onto arterials to get into that commercial portion of the development. That's -- that's something that if you recommend approval -- this project gets approved, that's something that the neighbors and the city is going to have to live with until that collector road is connected. That's just one of the compromises, you eliminate cut-through traffic from the commercial piece, at the same time you're putting more trips on an already overburdened system in the area to get to those services. So, it's something to think about as well. Perreault: So, one more question -- presentation -- another presentation that was given showed that at some point there were potential plans to make this eastern portion just either single-family or townhomes, something along those lines. What caused the change to go from that to the multi-family? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I will take that first. Bill, if you could go back to mine -- that slide. That's an excellent question, because we -- we wanted that to be R-15 and -- and not R-40. So, we are -- we are not -- we do apartments, but that's not our number one choice, where we -- we really would -- would have to sell that portion of the project. So, Bill, not being wrong and the rest of his team looked at the Comprehensive Plan, so when -- when you have Meridian next to Boise, you -- you come back, you have to use both and in this case it is a mixed use designation where the R-15 and our housing product is not dense enough and that is one item that -- that we -- we do well. That was one more of our planned changes from the first time we had neighborhood meetings is we -- we wanted the R-15. The R-15 won't fit the comp plan and it's not allowable. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Follow up question to what you just asked. If the area of city impact was adjusted and that was in Meridian zone instead of being split between the two, would the R-15 work, then, if it was to be adjusted? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I will answer for Bill. You -- you have -- what you do have for a neighborhood agreement is -- between cities is you both get along with each other's comp plans, because that's been a planning process, much like you were in ours now, Boise has had a chance to look at it out of courtesy. The same Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 84 of 98 happened here. So, similar to our Movado development that brought in the 40 acres of Boise land into Meridian, we had a requirement to utilize that comp plan of Boise's and transition it the best as possible to the Meridian's comp pan designation. So, this mixed- use in Boise will be required to be mixed use in Meridian, which your staff said get rid of your R-15, that's not going to be allowable, which it would not be. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I don't want them speaking for Bill. Bill, can you answer that question, please, because mixed use regional allows for R-15. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it does. The R-15 zone does speak to -- or does -- is allowed in that zoning district. So, there is a couple things that come into play. So, if you recall the applicant came forward with you on the Stapleton project. It was part of that mixed use regional. They made the argument that their seven or eight units to the acre was compatible with that mixed use designation. As part of that process we did encourage the applicant to increase their density to get a little more consistency there. So, to answer your question, it could have been R-15. Jim did plan with us, he showed single family homes on it, with a bunch of common lots and we are like, no, if we are going to be adjacent to Boise, if we are going to have commercial, let's provide a transition, so we want higher density as part of this project. That's what he provided. He -- R-40, but he could have come in with R-15 and still did a lesser -- less dense multi-family -- R-15, R-40, it doesn't matter, it's still -- a multi-family project requires a conditional-use permit in that zone. But, yes, he could have come in as part of the R- 15, but, again, staff did guide them to provide -- because we are -- looking at Boise's comp plan and understanding what they have envisioned for the property, they envision intensification -- tremendous intensification, from what I understand, and so we -- typically in a mixed use zone we start out with commercial, we transition to some sort of high density residential, whether that's townhomes or apartments or fourplexes and then -- or office or transition to less dense residential. So, we thought that this could be a good buffer between what Boise's thinking they are going to get on their piece of the prop -- piece of the puzzle, transition with multi-family and, then, tran -- and, then, head into a single family development and, then, feather around with existing in the area, whether it's Alpine Point or Champion Park and have that R-4 type of development. So, Jim's not incorrect, we did guide him to provide additional density part of the project. But R-15 could have worked as well. And, then, the comp plan and cut sheet for this, it doesn't anticipate densities between six and 40 units to the acre in the mixed use regional designation. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Anymore questions for the applicant? Thanks. Conger: Thanks for your time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 85 of 98 Perreault: So, my fellow Commissioner reminded me that I did not ask the audience if there were any additional individuals who would like to speak that weren't signed up on the -- the sheet in the back. So, if we could do this just one at a time and -- okay. It looks like we have a hand here and, then, we will -- we will ask the other two -- other three individuals there. Parsons: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Parsons: Commission, just keep in mind if you are taking additional testimony, remember that the applicant gets the last word, so he will be able to come back and rebut any additional comments that are presented this evening. Perreault: I understand. Thank you. Parsons: All right. Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and each individual has three minutes to speak. Thompson: I only need maybe 60 seconds. Perreault: Okay. Thompson: My name is Connie Thompson and I live at 4113 North Linwood Way and just in regards to traffic in the area period, twice in the last couple of weeks I have tried to exit Alpine Point via Wainwright at the stoplight and Eagle traffic is blocking you, so you can't even get out when it turns green that's how busy it has become and we had several traffic accidents at that intersection. So, it's very -- it's not just that they are bringing all that much more traffic and the apartments will bring that much more, but I couldn't even get out onto Eagle Road. I wanted to just sit there and honk at people, like what are you doing stopping in the middle of the intersection, so -- so, it really is a traffic nightmare around there already. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Thomson: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. I know we had a couple of hands over here. Please come forward. Cameron: Hi. My name is Joy Cameron and I live at 4211 North Chelmsford Avenue and I just wanted to say that I actually moved into Alpine Point three years ago, because my current neighborhood in Meridian, the same thing happened to us and the street got opened and it changed everything about our neighborhood and that's why I looked and I found this nice pocket neighborhood that was safe to move into . The applicant made Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 86 of 98 several comments and they were all about your city and you as Commissioners . Well, I want to say this is our city and this is my city and you're my Commissioners and I'm very proud to be a member of Meridian and I love our city. Also referenced to things not being done until 2023, 2000 -- I don't care if it's 2040, the bottom line is it's still going to impact us. When it's completely done it's done and it's going to -- it's going to happen. It's going to take place. So, I don't care if it's five, ten years that this is going to progress, it's the end result that affects us. We talked about we had two bus stops. We actually have three bus stops. At the very entrance of Wainwright we have a childcare facility and there is a bus that make several stops there throughout the day, which has -- it's really difficult with it being right next to Wainwright, but we have little preschool kids that are getting out and kids getting out running back and forth through there. Also right there in Wainwright we have a couple existing homes across the street. As neighbors we know that these families live there. People passing through don't. Several times I have had to stop, because the kids dart across the street to their home and the kids at the preschool play at the business centers right there and are running in those open green areas and are right there on Wainwright. So, they are also affected. I know right down the street from me we have another bus that comes for an adult with special needs . So, there are now -- we have four buses going through our neighborhood. We have had mention about that this was a master plan. Just because something was a master plan doesn't mean it was a good plan. We all make plans, we set goals, but it doesn't mean that it always is going to fulfill what you set it out to be. Meridian has grown tremendously. As a realtor, trust me, I know, this is the greatest city to live in and people are moving here left and right. If anybody would want growth you would think it would be me . Well, I do welcome people coming here, but at the same time why are we here, we are here for quality of life and so the building and the growth -- the dollars -- because, I'm sorry, but the type of building that's going on it does create money. I mean it says about money, these big huge developments, and that should not be at the expense of the quality of our home. People that bought in our neighborhood, these are our retirement homes and this is their final investment and this is going to affect future sales of the home . Some people have already sold their homes, because it's dangerous for their kids. So, that's another important thing. I, myself, have four grandkids and this is -- this is our home and I want it to be safe for them. On streets not functioning as designed, well, again, no one expected the building boom that's going on in our city now. There was a mention that it's not healthy for our neighborhoods. It's not healthy for our neighborhood. So, there is a lot of concern about the new neighborhood being built. But let's not move on to the new and forget about those that have already been here and been established. Perreault: I'm sorry, ma'am -- Cameron: Okay. Thank you very much and I just ask that you deny this application. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. We had two more hands over here. Please come forward. King: Hello. Thank you for taking our testimony. My name is Sandy King. I live at 2453 East Honeywood Court in Meridian and in Alpine Point. I am going to read to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 87 of 98 point out. I started with three. I have got a bunch -- some in rebuttal to Jim Conger. Please deny this application until the annexation and Centrepoint Way can be completed. You are looking at running residential and commercial traffic through our subdivision, not just a housing subdivision directly south of us. When that opens up, if his plan goes as -- as planned, they will be coming through our subdivision. The other issue is we have information and I have spoke with the city of Boise planning and zoning and our information agrees with Bill's information in that they are not necessarily wanting this annexation -- annexation at this point and their mixed-use zone, it could be anything, including open space. So, it could be R-4, R-15. Anything. That's -- and that's from -- directly from them. The transition in Jim Conger's plan from R-4 to R-15 and, then, R-40 is not a transition. It should be R-8, then, transition to the far side for R-15, and, then, his apartments, if that's what he's going to continue wanting. The -- I want to mention this, even though it is maybe not under your purview, but ACHD's traffic study is not accurate and we went to ACHD and I testified to that point. They only put chains on two of five ingress and egress points in our subdivision. They are way off on their study and they did it during spring break. So, most of the people were gone on vacation. It's not accurate. It is extremely flawed. The lots in that subdivision are anywhere from 31 to about 40 feet front. That is a really narrow lot. Parking is going to be an issue for everyone in that subdivision and everyone around. Our community -- yeah, I'm going to drop that point. You also have -- Jim mentioned that there is only a couple of people that have complained. We have had three meetings with him. The last one was I believe in January and we had 80 and 90 people present at those meetings . We had a huge turnout. You have letters on file that have been written by our residents . The May 2nd had, I don't know, 80 or 90 people here from our subdivision. Our entire subdivision is against what's currently going on. We are asking for bollards at Dashwood for foot traffic, bicycles, not road traffic. If you open that and you reduce the R rating -- the -- the R zoning to R-8 and R-15, you will reduce the amount that would go onto our streets if that isn't closed. Please deny the application as it currently exists. Thank you all for your time. Do you have any questions? Perreault: No. King: Thank you. Perreault: One more individual to testify. Trairatnobhas: Good evening. I'm Laura Trairatnobhas. 4621 North Camas Creek Way. Thank you for giving me just a moment to bring up one last point that hasn't been brought up. I was asked to, if possible, call up Mrs. Bernard's program one more time, slide seven or eight. We do have -- as you know Malissa's worked very hard and has come up with many possible plans that could work, which our neighborhood would happily accept and that would allow Mr. Conger and Devco to do what they need to do. Let's keep going. It's -- it's going to be -- oh, it's right in front of me. There we go. Okay. It's going to be number seven. Okay. Plan number seven will allow the traffic threshold, but -- will allow the traffic to stay under the threshold. You can see we have an upper portion that goes into Dashwood with larger homes and, then, that is completely separated, except for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 88 of 98 bollards, from a smaller more compact portion that will go out to Centrepoint Way and not exceed the traffic thresholds. I would just asked to bring that up and to just point out, too, once again, that these alternate plans that Malissa has come up with our great plans and they could work. The other point I wanted to bring up is this. No one has mentioned construction traffic. Mr. Conger is telling us that we are looking at, you know, maybe four and a half years of construction traffic for site development and , then, for the actual construction of the homes. As a person myself, I build single homes and sell them and I can tell you construction is slow in this valley, because even if you're Mr. Conger with a big company of your own, there is a lot of demand for construction. So, at least four and a half years of construction traffic. Where is it going to come in? Under the current plan it looks like it's all going to rumble in through Dashwood and that is not what the people of Dashwood need. So, once again, I would just like to ask you to deny this application and ask Mr. Conger to come back with a negotiated -- he keeps using the word negotiation, but we have not seen any negotiation with him, because negotiation involves give and take and there has been very little in the way of give and take and he has not met with us since February. So, please, ask him to come back with a better thought out plan, one where he's worked with us to really come up with something that everyone can live with. Thank you for your time. Perreault: Thank you. Mr. Conger, do you have anything additional to add? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. I do not have any additional. Would stand for a question and just thank you for your time . Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: I have -- Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: -- some questions. Something that was brought up that we haven't talked about is parking. Can you kind of address parking. Conger: Bill, do you mind going to my slide, if you don't mind, please. Madam Chair, Mr. Cassinelli, one second here and we will -- we will discuss parking. First off, with any -- any project meeting code, we -- we have a minimum of four on-property parking spaces for every house, which does fill -- fill the Meridian Code and we would not want to be below that ourselves anyhow. In addition we have a minimum of 56 off -street -- or I mean on-street parking spaces. You know, parking for us -- we are ready for this question, because it has come up before. I mean it's a typical ACHD street. We are used to getting this question in our townhouse projects and things of that nature on private streets . The public streets are built for parking. There is a big push out of the highway district and the other agencies and environmental consciousness to have the narrower streets as we all know, but, you know, we have actually surveyed, monitored all of our past developments as they function when we are gone, because it's that important to us for the future. We care more than -- I mean we -- we have neighbors worried about our parking, but we care Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 89 of 98 more than anybody in the room that this parking works. These are multi-phased projects that we produce typically speaking. If we have an issue in phase one with parking, our phase two will be a disaster and we won't sell it. So, from a responsibility standpoint to our future homeowners and as -- as well to ourselves, this is a very important topic for us and it's addressed. We purposefully place where no parking is and where parking is to get the amount that we feel comfortable. So, yes, it has been addressed in depth. Perreault: Along those lines, I'm guessing with 96 units in the multi-family you're going to have approximately 300 or so residents there. How many spaces do you have in that section and how many overflow spaces do you have? Conger: Madam Chair and the Commission, that is -- I don't know those off the top of my head as far as -- you're saying the multi-family homes parking? Perreault: Yes. Uh-huh. Conger: Yeah. It will exceed code. Perreault: Okay. Conger: I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. We are very fortunate in Meridian that you let us exceed code. In Boise this -- you're not really allowed to exceed the parking code, because they think it's wasted space and doesn't force people to buses . We -- we -- from a market standpoint and feasibility you need to overpark a little bit from code and it will. Perreault: Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Conger: Thank you. Perreault: All right. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hea ring for Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Who is jumping to share? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 90 of 98 Cassinelli: I really think it's important, number one, that -- that we work with the -- that the applicant work with the city of Boise first and deal with that -- that issue. Do it the right way. Perreault: Before you continue, can I ask you a question? Cassinelli: Yep. Perreault: If the city of Boise does not have an existing application process or public hearing process for this concern, can we give the -- do you have an expectation of what that looks like? Is it a letter from the Planning Department? Is it -- I know we can't say for sure, because we don't know the city of Boise's processes. Are you just wanting the developer to investigate what the process might be? Cassinelli: Well, I guess so. Maybe Bill can help answer this, but the -- Mr. Conger has already -- he's dealt with -- with utilities for -- the city of Boise, they have -- they have already told him we want you to -- to -- to deal with and hook up to Meridian and be a part of Meridian. But still haven't gone through City Council. Bill, maybe you can answer that as far as what -- what would that look like getting there -- I don't want to necessarily use the word blessing, but -- but have it go through those channels. What would it look like from a response from Boise? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I -- I can speculate for you. I would imagine reading the letter from Daren Fluke here, it says -- definitely says it -- they wanted you to go through the City Council. I would imagine it may be a department report or something that's brought up with them to give their blessing to send something to us to say, yeah, we are in agreement with the applicant to proceed with changing the area of city impact. Again, the count -- the applicant was in front of the Council with the application. I don't think he ever -- he said it was his determination they needed to go through that, but certainly there was a reason why you get -- a week before you get to the council hearing and you pull your application and, then, when you get a letter from the city of Boise that says we want you to follow the process and get approval from the city council. So, there has got to be a process there. What that is I can only speculate. But I know from -- from our perspective, from the City of Meridian, we did exactly what the applicant said. Give us a letter that shows that they are good, that we can service it. Then we go to the county and we process the map amendment with them with the changing of the boundary and, then, it gets -- it gets changed by the county. I imagine it's pretty -- pretty similar. I don't know if there is an app -- there is no formal application submittal to the city for that either to change the area city -- that city allows it and, then, they go through the county -- the jurisdiction goes through the county to get the area changed, usually with consent from the neighboring jurisdiction is typically how it works. Pogue: Madam Chair, I think it would be informative to have staff pull up Mr. Fluke's letter -- Perreault: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 91 of 98 Pogue: -- for you all to review through it there is information here that I think it would assist in terms of the process. Perreault: That's a great suggestion. Pogue: What has happened. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Perhaps while we are waiting for this we could talk through some of the other issues, too, but -- Perreault: Yes, that's fine. Absolutely. Holland: A couple of my thoughts. I appreciate that the applicant was working with staff's recommendation on the -- the R-40 versus R-15 and kind of how that would -- would transition there. There is a lot of R-40 and a lot of density that's kind of south of this project, so I would probably prefer to see an R-15 to an R-8 transition as well if it was my choice, rather than the R-15 and R-40. Just a thought there. The other big concern I have is just the way that the transportation -- traffic would flow through Dashwood versus Centrepoint. Would like to see a better circulation plan and see Centrepoint continue through before this project would be built would be my preference to make sure that you have appropriate access points to get in and out. I always like to see a little bit larger street width, too, because it's always challenging when you're trying to drive through a neighborhood and you have got one side for parking and the one side for cars, because if you have someone pull in front of the driveway to offload stuff for a second, you can have traffic that backs up and it's hard to move around. Those are just a few of my thoughts. The biggest concern for me is -- is, obviously, with the -- the city of Boise and improving the ACI first and making sure we do the proper channels with it, because I have got the same concern that Commissioner Cassinelli brought forward. Perreault: Sorry, could you state your second point again? Holland: If I can remember what it was. The R-15 and R-40, is that what you're talking about? Perreault: No. It was the one after that. Holland: The roadways. Talking about Dashwood versus Centrepoint and seeing a better circulation plan of -- of how that would build out. Perreault: So, you're -- you're suggesting that that northern parcel would need to be developed first and, then, Centrepoint extended from the north to the south and, then, be connected? Is that the thought? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 92 of 98 Holland: Not necessarily. I just -- I wish that there was a better way to at least build that access road through, to somehow to connect it through so it didn't have to go through Dashwood. It is a lot of -- a lot of homes to be funneling through that one street with six homes that are in that cul-de-sac that probably didn't plan to be a collector road. Perreault: Because as we know, that Centrepoint won't be connected until a private -- the private owner comes and there is a development made. It's not something that the ACHD is going to independently put in prior to their being an application for a development. Okay. Found it? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I -- the letter seems to be pretty clear to me. I have got other concerns that -- that I want to address, but I think we need to take this project -- this is a big project. It's -- there is a lot of a -- a lot of things to consider. I think we need to really take our time looking at this, but I think first step we need to go down the channel of -- of working with the -- having the applicant work with the city of Boise. I haven't heard from -- from fellow Commissioners, but I would be prepared to make a motion, but I do want to respect fellow Commissioners and hear from them at this point. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I have three points. Number one, Boise, obviously -- I believe that we should wait until -- and honor their request. On the traffic pattern, it seems to me that of one -- of those three presentations were made by the homeowners association , they should be considered and there -- I believe in our previous meeting we asked that there be some cooperation and some meetings between the developer and the homeowners and from what we are being told that hasn't taken place. I think we should go back to our original direction as far as that goes. Number three -- and as far as the density goes, I'm concerned about the density. I agree with the idea of cutting the density down and the main reason I'm concerned about that is this covers Heritage Middle School, which is 254 students over capacity and, more importantly, Rocky Mountain, which is 648 students over capacity. I think at some point in time we have an obligation to deal with the school crowding as much as we possibly can. Those are my concerns. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioner Seal, anything to add? Seal: Nothing yet. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 93 of 98 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just a couple more thoughts. I agree with one of the comments. I want to say the one thing I do appreciate that the applicant did was -- was trying to do single story houses on the -- the buffer to the neighborhood. Sir, I do appreciate that and I think having the -- the gated park -- it looks like a beautiful amenity and that you -- you included some additional site amenities in there that we only require one in code. I appreciate you going above and beyond on that. I think the city of Boise thing is -- is a -- something I don't know that we can get around, but I would agree with what Commissioner Olsen just put forward, that if we -- if the Commission decides to recommend denial and the applicant still takes this forward to Council, I would like to see the applicant still work with neighbors to have a conversation potentially before that even goes to Council, even if he's moving forward with a recommendation of denial from the Council -- or from the Commission. Perreault: I think the letter from the city of Boise is very clear about what it is that they expect. I don't -- I don't see a lot of gray area I think it would be remiss of us to recommend that -- recommend to City Council that they move forward without addressing th is. So, I'm in full agreement with my fellow Commissioners on that and I think that is a big priority. And also would -- would highly encourage the -- the applicant to -- I realize that not everybody is going to get their full satisfaction on this and I think that, you know, we hear testimony from all different kinds of individuals in our city and different neighborhoods . I want to applaud all of you, because you came very well prepared, very well organized and you're respectful to us and the time that you gave to those who spoke on your behalf, so we appreciate that and we -- I also get the impression that the tone is that you are trying to be reasonable about how it's done and so we appreciate that as well, because we oftentimes don't get that impression from some of the individuals that speak at our hearings. So, I wanted to just put that out there and -- but, again, I think the -- I think that moving forward with the city of Boise and -- and going through their appropriate process is -- it's very necessary and I have thoughts on a lot of other elements of it , but I don't know if we need to comment on that if we are going to do a continuation or if there is -- if there is a recommendation for denial, then, probably aren't necessary. So, I understand you're ready to make a motion, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: I don't know that a continuance was -- they have got to get on the calendar at the city of Boise. So, Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2019-0027 as presented during hearing on July 18th, 2019, for the following reasons: Number one, I feel that they need to go work with the city of Boise and get -- get agreement from the Boise city council on moving this into the Meridian area of impact, so that we can deal with it and I also want to see them move forward with possibly some different design solutions to work with the -- to the neighbors primarily to the north , but -- but all the neighbors. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 94 of 98 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded -- excuse me -- to deny -- to recommend denial to the City Council for application Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027. All those in favor -- Holland: Madam Chair, really quick one comment. Did we want to include anything about them working with having another neighborhood meeting or trying to do anything if they decide to move forward with the application? I don't know if that makes sense what I just said, but -- Cassinelli: Did I need to -- I did mention to -- to work with them. Do we need to -- do you want me to require -- I can amend my motion to require at least one more neighorhood meeting. I'm happy to do that. Holland: I wanted to hear my fellow commissioners thoughts on that and if -- if I'm alone on -- Olsen: Madam Mayor? No, I think -- I think we should, but I think we could also reference what we said in the May 2nd meeting, which I think basically outlined the parameters that we asked them to do. I think we need to be careful not to -- to change those parameters. Perreault: Does that make sense? Cassinelli: Yeah. So, do I need to -- do you want me to restate my -- Perreault: I would -- I think you can make an amendment to the motion. Cassinelli: Just amend the -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just to help you make the right motion as you -- guide you in the way that I think you want to go. It sounds like you're going to recommend denial. The applicant's -- Council is the decision making body, so when we go forward with denial we, essentially, strike all the conditions of approval. So, essentially, there is no project. There is no need to have the applicant go work with the neighbors. You could just simply state your reason for denial is that they didn't follow through with the neighbors and that is -- they didn't follow through with the city of Boise and, then, let the Council determine whether or not if they want the redesign, then, they can remand it back to you or they can deny the application or let it follow the process through City Council. There is -- there is no need to get too much in the weeds on that at this point if you're going denial. Perreault: Thank you, Bill. Appreciate that. Holland: Okay. I'm good. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 95 of 98 Cassinelli: Then my motion is to deny based on -- I'm not going to go through everything again, but deny based on going back through, working with Boise city council and working with the neighbors. Olsen: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial to Meridian City Council of Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Can I get one last motion, please. Holland: We have got one more -- Cassinelli: We have got one more item on the agenda. Perreault: Oh, that's right. We do. I was hopeful. Make it quick. Cassinelli: Is there any -- is there any chance we can -- D. Public Hearing for Variance Findings UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0071) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located City of Meridian 1. Request: An Amendment to UDC 11-5B-4E in regard to the required findings for Variance applications consistent with that of Idaho Code 67-6516 Perreault: All right. So -- we understand. Thank you. We will wait for everyone to clear out and, then, we will continue with our public hearing for Item D. Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry if you wouldn't mind moving into the lobby. We do have another hearing this evening. We are not quite done yet. No worries. No worries. Thank you. Have a good night. Perreault: Okay. I would like to open the public hearing for Variance Findings, UDC Text Code H-2019-0071. Bill, please -- please proceed. Parsons: Yeah. I was hoping they would stick around for the last item. Probably the least controversial of the evening. So, the last item on the agenda tonight -- I promise to keep it brief, because we have gotten late into the evening. But, really, this is a clean-up item that came about from coordination with our Council President. As you know, we -- typically it's been historically that the City of Meridian has required a variance for access to state highways and the most recent application that's become before this body and the City Council, you have seen you're often told you can't act on the variance, that's a City Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 96 of 98 Council requirement. Well, when we started digging into -- as those projects went through the public hearing process the attorney from the opposing side was arguing why is the city requiring a variance when state statute doesn't require a variance for access to state highways and, to be honest with you, I think it's something that the city kind of self imposed as part of their code and changes that they adopted in 2005. So, that's -- that's kind of -- that's created some confusion not only for this body, but for staff and for City Council on how we should make the findings for variances. So, with the guidance of legal counsel, the Council President, who is also an attorney, and staff, we realized that the state statute only speaks to variances in regards to placement of structures on properties. It doesn't speak to variances and also if you read the state statute definition for a variance, this first item that I have struck out as part of the proposed changes is already covered in that section of code and we already have it covered in our code. So, it's really not a finding that needs to be made by our City Council member, nor is a variance required. So, the previous text amendment that we just did -- that just recently got to approve, we removed the language that you needed to get a variance for the access to state highways, so this is just coinciding with that saying state statue already covers this in the right or special privilege. So, we don't need to make that finding. So, we only need a two-pronged approach, essentially, make two findings instead of three. So, again, it's a clean-up item, it's meant to be consistent with state code. It's been a collaborative effort and we ask that you approve this this evening and I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Is all we are doing, basically, is referring back to the code is -- because -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the -- Olsen: -- require some kind of a judgment and following the code? Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this finding is the one that's covered in -- in -- in the code already. Olsen: Right. Parsons: So, it's been our interpretation that we don't need to make that finding, because that's the -- why you're applying for the variance, because it doesn't give you a special right or privilege. So, there is no need for that to be part of our code. Already covered in code. So, it's just -- so, based on the guidance -- so, whenever we grant variances there is findings just like when you approve annexations or preliminary plats, there is findings you have to make, well, these are the findings that you have to make to grant approval or denial of a variance. So, again, one is already covered in code. It's covered in state Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 97 of 98 code. It's not necessary. So, we are going to strike it and just stick with two findings versus three. That's really the purpose of the change. Olsen: Thank you. Perreault: Are you done? Olsen: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have something to ask? Cassinelli: Well, I was just going to make a commotion. Perreault: Oh, please do. Cassinelli: I move that we close the public hearing for file -- whatever file number -- what file number is this? H-2019-0071. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2019-0071. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Any discussion? No discussion. That is a first. I'm proud of us. Okay. Then that being said, I need a motion -- Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: -- for -- go ahead. Seal: I'm ready. Perreault: Please do. Seal: It's an easy one. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommended approval of the City Council of file number H-2019-0071 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 18th, 2019. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0071. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 98 of 98 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes, Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Move to adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. Pogue: Madam Chair? I believe staff wanted to bring up the August 1st date and whether -- Parsons: Yeah. As you know we don't have any projects scheduled for that hearing date, so we will be canceling that meeting. Pogue: Cancelling. Yeah. I just wanted to let you know. Perreault: Excellent. Thank you. Sorry. Did we vote on our closing motion? Olsen: No. Perreault: Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded to close the public meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 18th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:12 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ JESSICA PERREAULT - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK