The URL can be used to link to this page

2014 10-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 2, 2014 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 2, 2014, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Joe Marshall. Present: Chairman Joe Marshall, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Members Absent: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Steven Yearsley X Patrick Oliver Rhonda McCarvel X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall - Chairman Marshall: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for October 2nd, 2014, and I'd like to begin with roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Marshall: All right. First thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and one note -- not actually a change to the agenda, but a note is that Action Items A, B and C for Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, we are hearing that -- opening that simply to recognize a withdrawal of the application. Other than that I have no changes to the agenda. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Freeman: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of September 4, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 2 of 33 B. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 14-014 Boise Slam Basketball Club by Boise Slam Basketball Club Located at 3660 E. Lanark Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for an Indoor Recreation Facility in an I -L Zoning District D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 14-013 Generations Investments by Generations Investments, LLC Located 317 S.W. Fifth Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of the Proposed Development Per Requirement of the Development Agreement Marshall: All right. The Consent Agenda. We have four items. The minutes of September 4th, 2014. The minutes of September 18th, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Also we have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval CUP 14-014, Boise Slam Basketball Club and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of approval of CUP 14-013, Generation Investments. Any comments about -- corrections, additions, subtractions? Freeman: No. Marshall: All right. Freeman: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. Yearsley: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: All right. We are to the Action Items and I would like to take just a second to explain how this process will work. I will open each item and ask for the staff report and the staff will give their report as to how the application meets UDC code and -- and the development guidelines of the city and, then, after that, then, I will ask the applicant to come forward and add any additional information they would like to be considered. Then we are going to ask for you public testimony and if anybody would like to speak to this I would appreciate it if you could sign up in back. There is a list there that you can sign up for and, then, each person will get -- the applicant will get 15 minutes and, then, an individual person will get three minutes to address the Commission. If you are representing a large group of people by show of hands we can extend that to ten minutes. After we have -- after -- I will go through the list of the people who have signed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 3 of 33 up, then, I will call for anyone else that would like to address and, then, we will ask the applicant back up to address any issues that might have arisen. Then we will hopefully close the public hearing, deliberate, and render an appropriate decision I pray. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: CPAM 14-001 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on Approximately 1.65 Acres from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Mixed Use - Neighborhood (MU -N) B. Public Hearing: RZ 14-006 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Rezone Approximately 1.65 Acres from the R-8 (Medium -Density Residential) Zoning District to the C -N (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District C. Public Hearing: PP 14-015 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Two (2) Commercial Lots, Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.65 Acres in the R-8 and Proposed C -N Zoning Districts Marshall: And with that I would like to open the public hearing for CPAM 14-001, RZ 14-006 and PP 14-015 for the purpose of acknowledging a withdrawal. The applicant has asked to withdraw that. So, any comments or anything? No? So, could I get a motion to acknowledge that withdrawal of these items? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Yes, Commissioner. Yearsley: I move that we acknowledge the withdrawal of the application. Freeman: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to acknowledge the withdrawal of CPAM 14- 001, RZ 14-006 and PP 14-015 Earl Glen. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 4 of 33 D. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2014: AZ 14-011 Jump Creek by Northside Management Located Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 86.06 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (64.63 Acres) and R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) (21.43 Acres) Zoning Districts E. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2014: PP 14-013 Jump Creek Located Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Road and W. McMillan Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 318 Single Family Residential Lots, 2 Multi - Family Lots and 42 Common Lots on Approximately 85.9 Acres in the Proposed R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts Marshall: All right. Now, Action Items D and E are the same application and I would like to open AZ 14-011 and PP 14-013 for Jump Creek and ask for the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you this evening is Jump Creek. The property is situated on the northwest corner of McMillan Road and North Black Cat Road and it does extend northward a half a mile along Black Cat Road here. You can see the adjacent properties are annexed and zoned within the city. To the west we have The Oaks North preliminary plat subdivision, zoned R-8 and R-4. To the north we have Oaks North Subdivision as well, which is zoned R-15, but not reflected in this plan, it hasn't been changed through the county yet, but it is zoned R-15 along the north boundary. To the east we have Bainbridge Subdivision and Volterra North Subdivision, zoned R-8 and R-5. And, then, along the south boundary we have Oaks Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8 and that was done recently. It was done in 2013. You can see here in the aerial that the property is primarily agricultural in nature at this time and does have several structures on the property that will be removed with development. Depending on phasing they may stay on the property until such time as that particular phase has commenced and that is addressed in the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this property as medium density residential similar to what the adjacent properties are to the north, to the west and to the east. The applicant is here this evening to discuss annexation of approximately 86.6 acres of land with the R-8 and the R-15 zoning districts. The two graphics that are before you right now are the preliminary plat, but what I have highlighted before you in the blue are the areas that are proposed to be R-15 -- request R-15 zoning district and, then, the remainder of it would be R-8. The preliminary plat does consist of 318 residential lots, two multi -family lots located in the northeast corner and the southeast corner the development and, then, 42 common lots are also proposed for the subdivision. Because of the size and scope of this project, the applicant did provide the subdivision in two different formats. So, basically, the graphic on the left is the northern half of the development and the graphic on the right is the southern half of the development. So, as I move through my presentation I will try to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 5 of 33 stay consistent and talk about the north and the south half, so we don't get -- have you bounding back and forth between both applications or both subdivision maps. The average lot size for this subdivision this evening is -- or at least the MEW lots along -- or at least the lots along the MEW lots -- average lot size is 3,600 square feet and that's why he's requesting the R-15 zoning in order to go -- meet those dimensional standards and, then, the other traditional single family lot -- average lot size are between 6,500 square feet. The two multi -family lots consist of one -- the northeast corner consists of 1.92 acres and, then, the one on the southeast corner consists of a little under three acres in size. And densities for these multi -family developments would be -- would happen at the time that they proposed a conditional use permit. So, at this time the applicant is merely just platting the lots. There are no development proposals at this time. What you see here is merely a concept, but looking at the density based on the concept plan here, the applicant is showing densities at 15 units to the acre or slightly above that. If you exclude the multi -family development and just take into account the number of single family lots that are proposed for this development we are a little bit under the four units to the acre mark. So, it is -- it does fall within the density range of the Comprehensive Plan, which is designated at three to eight dwelling units to the acre. When combined with the multi -family is slightly higher at approximately five units to the acre. In my staff report I did bring out -- recall some issues that the applicant was to bring forth a revised subdivision plat for you to align some streets, make some connectivities with the property to the west and I'm happy to report that the subdivision that's before you this evening is the revised plat per staff. One modification that was not corrected based on staffs recommendation in the staff report was the red highlighted area that I have here, this rectangular shape here. When I was analyzing the subdivision in accord with our block length standards, I noticed that this block length -- if you were to measure it from The Oaks Subdivision's nearest street into this street proposed by the applicant, that block length would be in excess of 1,100 linear feet and so staffs remedy for that was to actually have the applicant flip flop the street in the location that I have highlighted in the red rectangular box to help mitigate that and staff has also placed a condition that the applicant put in a micropath connection to help break up that block length as well in accordance with the UDC. So, the micropath has been added, but the road has not been swapped off to the opposite side of the common lot. I think other than that a majority of the issues raised in the staff report have been addressed. The common lot was placed along the north boundary of these lots, so we did not have double fronted lots and all the streets have been aligned and shifted to match up with the road network approved with Oaks North project as well. The open space proposed for this development is approximately 13.5 acres of open space. The UDC does require ten percent open space. This plat as presented to you this evening is a little bit over 15 percent. Staff is recommending a development agreement with the annexation of those properties and one of those recommended provisions is to require a minimum of 15 percent open space for the subdivision. The amenities include a walking path along the collector road here and forgive me on this graphic, the landscape plan is eight sheets, so I will quickly go through these slides, but in general this plan does comply with the landscape ordinance. So, one of the amenities will be a ten foot multi- use pathway along the collector roadway, which was also conditioned with The Oaks North development to the west. There is a tot lot planned for this northern common lot, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 6 of 33 which counts as an amenity. As you head south the application has another large pass of open space lots with interconnected pathways that feed into that pathway -- or to that amenity. Again, there is a second tot lot and, again, as we head south through the development there is the interconnecitivity which leads to the southern portion of the development, which has a MEW lot and an additional tot lot. So, the applicant is required to provide four amenities and they are doing that in the form of three tot lots, integrated micropath system, a multi -use pathway system and open space in excess of ten percent. So, that five percent additional open space does count as an amenity in the UDC. I'd also point out to you in the staff report I did raise some concerns with the amount of drainage lots that the applicant is proposing within the development. In particular our ordinance supports both of those, but it has to be done in a decorative manner. It has to be -- it has to look like a dry river bed or a creek bed and without having those details this evening staff is concerned that some of the open space that was represented in the landscape plan isn't necessarily consistent to what the ordinance will allow. So, we have a condition that they work very closely with staff and they coordinate with the UDC as far as designing those drainage lots to meet the UDC and perhaps the applicant can chime in on what they propose or what they envision for the design of those drainage lots, but I did want to at least get that out to you as well. And, then, also staff has also recommended additional pathway connections not only to tie in with The Oaks North Subdivision, but also into a sidewalk that will be along the arterial street. So, if I can direct your attention to my cursor here, staff has recommended a micropath connection to this drainage lot here to tie into the sidewalk, which would allow them to feed into The Oaks North development and, then, there is also another open space connection here along McMillan Road, which staff has conditioned the applicant to also place in another micropath correction through here to tie in. So, we are getting some of that connectivity as you saw as we move from the north to the south. And I'm just going to go through these very quickly. All of the sidewalks within this development will be attached sidewalks, except along the arterial streets and the collector roadway. The UDC does require that they be detached sidewalks along those roadways. The applicant show fencing details for this subdivision as well and they are planning on constructing a six foot and a four foot tall vinyl -- vinyl fencing for this entire subdivision. So, there are a couple locations where the fencing does not comply with the ordinance, but the staff has -- addresses that and they will be stepped down to four feet in accord with the ordinance. And staff would review that compliance at final plat. So, if I can step back to the plat here very quickly. A couple items that we need to discuss with you this evening. Then applicant is proposing three access points to Black Cat Road and no access is proposed to McMillan Road. The applicant has worked very closely with ACHD on this central access point off of Black Cat. In those dealings with ACHD they have committed to ACHD that that would be a temporary access and it would be closed off at such time when this collector road is constructed. Staff has a DA provision in the staff report -- excuse me. I'm on the wrong one here. Staff does have a DA provision that requires that to be secondary emergency access and bollard in the future as well. We feel there is still a value to it, we just don't want it to serve as a main access for the development, but we do want it to serve as a pedestrian connection. So, ACHD has a condition to -- that that entrance point would merely be a 25 foot driveway. It will not be built to a local street standard. It's merely Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 7 of 33 just to serve as an access point -- a reference point for the applicant to start first phase of development and that's really the purpose of the access point and that's why in our staff report staff has recommended that this collector road be constructed with the 123rd residential lot and the reasoning for that was -- we looked at the applicant's phasing plan, we counted the number of lots that would be built with phase two. We added phase one and phase two and we worked with ACHD closely to come up with a number that we all could agree, meaning ACHD and staff, and we felt that was the appropriate trigger point in order to, one, require that collector road and have that other access point closed off. It's going to be very critical for this area. I don't know if you -- the Commission had a chance to read COMPASS's letter on this application, but as they stated in that letter, there is a no funding to improve any of the adjacent arterial roadways. The development happening out there is outside of their range or hasn't been accounted for in the 2040 transportation plan and so it's going to be very critical for ACHD and the city to make sure that the appropriate street network is in place moving forward and staff and ACHD both feel that that collector street is -- it needs to come sooner than later. I know the comments that the applicant provided back to me he stated he would like to have that condition modified to have that collector street built at the 222nd building permit -- residential lot. Excuse me. But staff is sticking with their guns and we are definitely -- want to make sure that happens sooner than later and there is multiple reasons for it. One is the arterial roads won't be improved for quite some time. I mean it could be years -- ten years before some of that happens. I know that adjacent development to the east in the Volterra Subdivision has contacted the city -- they have contemplated -- or have received approval to construct their collector roadway along the east side. That will dive into the residential development within the next six months. So, we are starting to see that connectivity out there earlier than later. By having that and closing off that access these folks will be able -- rather than forcing them out onto arterials to get to Walmart, they will have the ability to cut through this collector street network and get down the employment and the shopping that we envision at the corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. Also with the Volterra Subdivision and the Bainbridge Subdivision we also have an elementary school site planned for that and so we envision that connectivity in getting people to that intersection and crossing to get into that school. So, therefore, staff believes this really should come on in an earlier phase, rather than even fourth or fifth phase of this development. The one other item that I want to bring to your attention -- not only do we want the road connectivity with the earlier phase, but we also want sidewalks in sooner than later. So, we have a DA provision in the staff report that will require a segment of sidewalk to be constructed in its entirety with the single -- with the first phase of development and the way it's structured currently here -- you can see my yellow line here -- so, this is the Daphne Lane -- or Daphne Drive intersection and staff has a condition that that sidewalk from the north side of that intersection all the way to the south side of the collector road intersection be constructed with the first phase of development based on the same reason that we just discussed. If that school site comes in and kids are living in the subdivision it's nice to get them along that street to the intersection and cross over to the school site. The reason why I have two different lines depicted here for you is because the applicant has requested that he construct the yellow line that I have here -- represents the amount of sidewalks that would be constructed with phrase one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 8 of 33 subdivision. The brown line would be what he's proposing to construct with phase two. Not in its entirety, but we get it with the earlier phases. Again, staff is saying with this recommendation in the DA and requiring that that entire sidewalk be built with the first phase of the development. Now I will step back to the elevations now. One of our -- one thing that staff did appreciate from the applicant was that their diversity of housing for this subdivision. I mean to have the multi -family, to have alley loaded mixed in with traditional single family -- it makes sense. It's similar to what Coleman did with The Oaks project. So, kudos to the applicant for doing that. I applaud them for wanting to provide that diversity in that area. Particularly since this is only medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. So, that bodes well for that area and it's planned. So, here is a flavor of the homes that are -- for the traditional homes in the subdivision. Again, staff has required them to comply with these submitted elevations. haven't attached all the elevations to this presentation this evening, because there will be quite a few slides, but I do quickly want to go through here and just show you the design theme for the subdivision and, then, certainly chime in if there is anything that you don't like and don't want to tie into the development agreement moving forward or recommend to Council, staff would be happy to remove that or strike that from the staff report moving forward. So, again, these are more traditional homes. The plan for the 6,500 square foot lots and bigger and, then, if you recall in my staff report I did require the applicant to provide some alley loaded elevations for you this evening. So, here is some of the front elevations here. Here is some renderings. These are typical to what were approved in the Southridge development -- south off of Overland and, again, there is a -- there is a mix of materials here. Staff is supportive of -- of the mix and blend of housing and, of course, of these elevations. Now, there are some design concepts that staff is not too keen on here that my condition in the staff report, as I said, if you -- if there is something you don't like here, it easily can be removed and we can strike that. Particularly staff is not too keen on a window having a single shutter next to it. Either remove it or provide a different decorative element. I mean it's a little bit nitpicky and we certainly can work through those before we get to Council, but, again, some of these -- these are some of the products that have been approved out there throughout the city. Staff did want to close in saying that we did receive written testimony from the applicant Mr. Noriyuki. Again, I did address his two items that he wants to discuss this evening with you. One is the requirement -- the timing for the construction of the collector road and, then, also the timing for the construction of the sidewalk -- or at least that portion of sidewalk along Black Cat Road. One thing that I did fail to mention in his public testimony he did say he was willing to dedicate the necessary easements and the right of way for that collector with phase one. And, then, also in your packet I did receive about 5:00 o'clock this afternoon an e-mail from Becky McKay, who represents the developer of The Oaks North Subdivision and she did provide a few bullet points of what she would like you to address or have the applicant address this evening with his plat design. So, I have given a copy of -- or the applicant a copy of those comments to address this evening. With that staff has not received any phone calls or any other written testimony on this application. Again, the applicant in general -- generally they are in -- he's in agreement with most of the conditions of the staff report, it's just the two items that I brought up with you and this concludes my presentation and I would stand for any questions you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 9 of 33 Marshall: Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Freeman: I have one. Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Bill, it's -- it's not unusual that with projects like this we get photographs of existing houses to exemplify intended elevations. I'm just curious how staff looks at that when the actual elevations come to you. Do you -- do you take these as -- obviously not literal guidelines -- are you looking for a flavor -- I mean what purpose do these end up serving once you see actual elevations in design review? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, in defense -- it's not an easy answer, but typically there is a handful of subdivisions that have reviewed currently where I actually have the elevations submitted to me before they can even obtain a building permit. This development agreement is not structured that way. It does require them to have compliance with the elevations on specific lots -- not necessarily the whole subdivision, but we certainly want to get a mix of flavors and materials out there. If it's your desire that you want staff to look at every home elevation certainly you can do that and we would be more than happy to do that, but typically the applicant would submit the home elevations, they get it routed to us, we review it for consistency with these elevations and we move it onto the building department. Freeman: But general consistency -- Parsons: We want general consistency. Freeman: Style and materials is -- Parsons: Correct. We don't -- Freeman: -- what you're looking for. Parsons: For example, if you look at the graphic here, if they came in with a four-by- four post for that front porch, I would tell them to put a decorative column on that. It's not meeting their -- their design criteria that is shown here. Freeman: Architects around the world love you, Bill. Parsons: Yeah. But we really -- we really want to get what -- what we are showing here. If we didn't want that we wouldn't bring it to the hearing. I mean that's the intent here is we want as close as possible to what we are representing to you. Freeman: Thank you for clarifying. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 10 of 33 Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Just one question regarding -- is there a square footage requirement there minimum in this subdivision? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, there isn't. The R-8 zone and the R-15 zone does not have a minimum home size. That would be the R-2 and the R-4 zone. But this particular development would not. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, are we requiring the lots facing -- backing up to Black Cat and McMillan having the same standards that we have done before in the past about having back lots having articulation and -- as well? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, it's in the development agreement that they provide a mix of those building materials, pop outs, covered porches, decorative trim on the back of those facades along the arterial streets and the collector roadway. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Commissioners, anything else? At this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Noriyuki: Commission, Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management, Boise, Idaho. 6810 Fairhill Drive, Boise. With that said, first of all, thank you. Bill, could you, please, bring up the overall plat? I realize it's not as detailed, but I think it's very important for me for my presentation in kind of showing the overall area with my discussion that's clearly in the submittal or the e-mail this morning. While he's pulling that up I want to -- I'm going to try to systematically and quickly go through all of these items if I can. First of all, want to thank Bill -- coming on with a project of this size and scope and having very few conditions or issues at this point I think is positive. We are working very hard. I have been in recent days collaborating with the engineer or owner's rep of The Oaks project. We have formally, mathematically connected or aligned with all of their pathways and all of their roadways. We have addressed the plat for the vast majority of purposes in compliance with the -- thank you, Bill -- with the conditions as stated. So, I'm going to jump into a couple of things. First of all, Bill had talked about the particular block length that we are not in conformance with. My apologies. It was a late night last night when I was trying to update this plat before the hearing. We have no problem with flip flopping that and bringing that into alignment. That was just 2:45 a.m. Sorry, guys, I was getting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 11 of 33 a little rummy. From there I want to address my two key concerns, if you will. The A number one I want to talk about is the time for the collector to come online. This is not just a financially or territorial motivated contemplation, it's more of a practicality and when you look at the overall aerial photography, the approved projects and where the development is going to proceed, asking us or, rather, requiring us to build the collector in its entirety at the 223rd lot -- I'm struggling with the -- the validity of it or the merit of it and my reasoning is is -- and I should have brought a better exhibit. Bill, can I modify this a little bit to show the vicinity map and can I draw on this? Parsons: No, you can't draw on it. Noriyuki: The vicinity map is on the -- okay. That -- no. That's perfectly fine. Okay. Yeah. There we go. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to attempt to draw if I can. How do I draw? Parsons: You can't draw on that. Marshall: It's not working? Parsons: No, it -- it's not a smart board. Noriyuki: Okay. Okay. That's fine. I can explain. So, what we have going on is we are -- obviously, our project is Black Cat - McMillan running north along Black Cat. There is no question that Volterra has the public right of way and the sewer that's been in for the last couple of years. They are going to need to make those improvements and ultimately we are going to continue that to the west to The Oaks. As the Volterra project comes online, the continuation of the collector to the west has no bearing on any kind of recent day contemplation. That doesn't increase connectivity. They are simply going to Black Cat Road at that point. By asking me to build the collector on my portion that early on, I'm creating a dead end street that's a tax burden at the end of the day, because it's going nowhere. My reasoning is The Oaks project that you recently approved, they do not contemplate until their ninth phase or about 314 lots, even needing the connection that we would provide. So, at that point there is no connectivity. Furthermore, in my comment that I sent to you that hopefully you had received it from Bill that has some colored exhibits as far as my proposed phasing. If you look at that from a practicality standpoint in my proposed second -- or third and fourth phases that would carry me up to that 222 lot cap before I build the collector, at that point I'm actually remedying multiple things. One, it financially is more viable for me. Let's be realistic. And that is a motivation. But, number two, I am providing The Oaks their first secondary connection and their third. At this point they have got a condition -- correct me if I'm wrong -- through a final plat that after the 50th or 55th platted lot they need to have secondary access. Their project was approved with a singular -- and I realize it's a collector, but a singular -- all the way until their seventh phase. Now, I realize that the onus would be on them to remedy it, but my point is this -- if I can practically do my phasing not only does it work for me, it's realistic, but I'm also providing multiple connections for The Oaks. We are as a city, as a highway district, as taxpayers and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 12 of 33 practically developing, collectively, and moving this whole thing forward. Also we have intertwined water loops. That's going to give us better fire suppression, higher levels of safety for EMS and fire trucks and police just general connectivity. Also it's going to give us more cohesive pedestrian connectivity. So, if I'm forced at a point on my 123rd lot to suddenly jump to the far north and build an arbitrary collector that's a tax burden, provides no -- no realistic connection to The Oaks until their ninth phase, I'm not sure what we are achieving here. I'm struggling. I have also contacted ACHD and discussed this concern with them and I confirmed that it is not policy based, it is not fire life safety or health or code based. This is -- I appreciate the concern to want to build the collector sooner than later and I appreciate the concern that maybe we would hold out until our last phase from a competitive nature or a cost nature, that's simply not true, because, one, it is not our final phase that we are proposing to do it. Number two, in the first phase I'm very willing to convey not only the rights of way, but the public easement similar to what you did for Volterra. I think it's appropriate and I think it's practical and think it's a fair playing field. Also there is no necessity or pressure at this point. If The Oaks were planning to connect me in their third phase or maybe even their second or fourth, I could appreciate it, but at this point it's their ninth phase, 314th lot at that point. So, I think that's a pretty compelling argument. Then jumping in and kind of intertwined with that is my only other concern is in the first phase the requirement of taking the sidewalk along Black Cat from the northern point or Daphne Street -- northern point of our phase one, which is this blue area if you look at it -- and asking me to continue the sidewalk all the way up to the collector, if you will, which would be the orange or phase five that I'm proposing here. Two different concerns. The A number one concern is where am I building this sidewalk to at this point? Everything is under agriculture at this point. There are multiple preliminary plats. There are multiple approvals. Things are going to get there, but at this point we are literally building a sidewalk to nowhere. If there was a school that was under construction, if there was a phase within Volterra that was under construction, if there was somewhere that it made sense, I could consider that. The next issue is the fact that along where the sidewalk is is -- there is an active irrigation lateral and this project is very big. It's going to be a multi-year project. At this point I need to keep the agricultural and irrigation infrastructure in place, because intend to actively farm this property while we are developing, rather than having a weed patch. It seems like a good use for the land. And by virtue of building this -- building this sidewalk prematurely it's a cost to me. It affects the ability to appropriately farm the area and, frankly, it's going to affect some of these individuals back here from a drainage standpoint, because I'm going to have to modify, because my property takes on the vast majority of their property drainage. So, I got to hurry. Those were my two key points, if you will. The next items I'm going to move on to is regarding pathway connection to the south. The two points, if you will, down to McMillan Road -- absolutely agree. Have no problem. We are happy to do that. I do want to quickly cover as best can Becky McKay, representative for The Oaks. I just got this, so I'm being a little bit reactive, so, please, bear with me. Item No. 1, as far as lot transition between my western edge and their eastern edge, I will make some considerations. I do want to point out that diversity in this area and mixed use is very important to the City of Meridian, rather than simply replicating. A rule of thumb is the two to one ratio, if you will, when you're looking at transitional lots. We fit into that ethical conversation, but we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 13 of 33 also fit into the comp plan of the code with the R-8. I will consider, but at this point don't think that has a lot of merit or necessity. I think product diversity is healthy. Number two coordination. Regarding the Creason Lateral. Absolutely. We got a lot of things going on there. I think our plat contemplates the actual easement, therefore, you can see my connections going in having common lots, rather than placing them in backyard easements. I think we were a little more thoughtful at the end of the day, but, regardless, we agree and we do have to collaborate, there is no question. Number three, the multi -family component on the southeast, I completely disagree with the statement that -- or this opinion that it would be an afterthought. This project, unlike The Oaks, The Oaks is a straight subdivision. It's just mass platting of the same size. It's pretty, but it's the same thing. Our project is truly diverse. We are bringing in multi - builders, we are not going to have a singular builder. We are also bringing in a multi- family component. Bringing in an alley -load component. We are bringing in a diversity of sizes of classic lots, if you will. Three car, two car, smaller, more affordable, more high end, alley load, multi -family -- multi -family may be between apartments, four-plex, duplex, tri-plex. I think it's exciting what we are doing and it's not an afterthought. It was seriously contemplated. Number four, the intersection of Black Cat have some sort of a feature, if you will. I appreciate that. That's easy for somebody to say who doesn't own the land. Of course we -- a project of this size and scope we are going to naturally have some sort of monumentation at not only the major intersection, but the collector. It behooves us from a marketing standpoint, we got a lot of money there, we are going to do something cool. Number five, I could not frankly understand what that statement was. Maybe if Bill can enlighten me on, but I didn't really -- it didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I can't speak to that right now. Number six, the stub streets intersecting at 90 degrees. Everything that we are going to do where we connect to them is going to be a hundred percent ACHD policy and in conformance. We really don't have a choice if we want a final plat to get our construction docs done. I do believe that based on my engineer Dave Bailey, he's got tremendous experience in this valley. He's got good understanding of what he's doing. He would say either, A, they do conform or, B, he will conform. There is no question. Without affecting them I want to point out. And, then, number seven, I completely agree with that statement. We are looking for -- we got a lot of lots here. We need -- we need our -- we need our houses to sell for top dollar, because we got a long haul here and we are not going to come in with cheap stuff and drive our own price bracket down. We need to drive our price bracket up. On the last note regarding elevations, I completely agree that's an important component. I'm going to continue to bring in some more diverse elevations ahead of City Council specifically -- bear with me -- on modeling these specific to the project. Anything that's up against a collector or arterial there is no question that we need to have modulation and interest on the back sides, as well as the sides that not only are exposed to a collector or arterial, but a side that's exposed to a common lot. Okay. With that I will stand for any questions. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of -- Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 14 of 33 Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Can I -- this is kind of a strange question, but where are you pulling your water and sewer from? Isn't it coming from that collector street across the street from you? Marshall: It will be pulling all water and all sewer off of Black Cat. Unlike -- unlike The Oaks project -- The Oaks falls outside of the drainage basin, therefore, that's where they are building the interim lift station, if you will. A hundred percent of this property falls within the Black Cat drainage. Yearsley: Okay. Noriyuki: And we do have capacity within the line and there is capacity within the plant. Yearsley: So, you would be pulling it off of Black Cat then? Noriyuki: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: I'm going to ask -- Bill, could you -- you come back up and put the -- the -- the phase plan back up? The colored phase plan. I wanted to check with something on it. Noriyuki: Absolutely. And the second phase one is The Oaks that illustrates the ninth phase, if you will that I spoke about. Marshall: Could you pull it down just enough so I -- okay. So, phase one is 55. Phase two is 41. And phase three is 53. So, what the 123 requires is that -- what the staff is recommending is at 123, when you're partially done with phase three they are required to put the collector there in orange in. Noriyuki: With that cap I could not even realistically do my phase three at that point, because I would exceed the 123 proposed. So, after two, before I could even move into phase three, I would be forced to go into the collector. Marshall: Before you built phase three out -- I mean you would be able to put phase three in, but you wouldn't be able to build -- fully build out phase three until you put in the collector. Noriyuki: Well, from a final platting standpoint I would be before City Council with a phase three that would propose me exceeding that cap and that phase three would not include any of the collector work and I would be denied at that point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 15 of 33 Marshall: Let me clarify with staff. I don't think that's the case. I believe the plat would be approved, you just wouldn't get building permits for any additional houses beyond 123. Noriyuki: Okay. And I guess I could accept a condition like that, but from a financial -- a fiscal standpoint accepting a condition that is -- Marshall: I get you. I understand. I understand what you're saying. Noriyuki: Yeah. Marshall: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, you did mention that ACHD -- that central -- center of those three -- Noriyuki: Yes. Marshall: -- is a temporary access. Noriyuki: Yes. Marshall: And we have conditioned that to be a 25 foot drive lane? Noriyuki: Yes. But it is allowed as a full access point -- Marshall: Yes. Noriyuki: -- and, yes, at the point the collector is built we do have to take it offline. We are going to plat -- or we are going to create an easement for water and sewer through that and, then, ultimately we are going to convert it to a common lot with a pathway and, then, we decommission it and that would be a requirement prior to signature on the final plat from them. But I do want to iterate that they would be agreeable to decreasing the lots to 222 before building the collector and decommissioning or taking offline the central access point, provided Meridian support. Marshall: Got you. Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or a clarification. You said you would be willing to put in a sidewalk on Black Cat in just, you know, a phase at a time; is that right? Noriyuki: Well, that's my -- absolutely. That's my intent is with each phase -- each phase carries its required burden. So, within phase one of course we are going to do all of our off sites, all of our conveyances, all of our sidewalks that we are required to do and, then, of course, phase two we would do that, but the olive branch I'm putting out or the negotiation, if you will, is within my phase two that's pink, if you look at this exhibit, I will go ahead and carry it through the purple or phase there all the way up to where the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 16 of 33 collector is going to be. Just to be nice. Or -- well, that's -- you understand what I'm getting at. Oliver: So, you did mention earlier that along part of that sidewalk there is a drainage -- or some -- a ditch that -- Noriyuki: A major lateral for our property. There is a user ditch that comes in, if you will, through the Volterra property in general from the east coursing to the west. At that point it crosses under Black Cat and, then, that provides us necessary irrigation to irrigate that agricultural land, plus the tree farm that's out there. Oliver: But the sidewalk doesn't parallel or does it come in contact -- the sidewalk that you would be planning to build doesn't come in contact with that ditch at all? Noriyuki: It will obliterate that ditch at the point we put the site in. That's why I wanted to do it phase by phase basis. Oliver: It would be covered -- Noriyuki: Yeah. Because ultimately I am going to need to adjust that every single time bring a phase on, because even though I bring a phase on I still need to irrigate the remainder of the property. So, it's going to be this stair step, very expensive process. But also coupled with that I have also got drainage requirements that I need to handle all of my drainage, but I need to handle all of the drainage of the properties directly across Black Cat to the east. So, I have got significant piping at that point as well. So, simply putting in the sidewalk prematurely is not just putting in a sidewalk, it's a pretty major endeavor. Oliver: It's just if it makes it more difficult to farm that land -- Noriyuki: Absolutely. Oliver: -- while you're in progress. Noriyuki: Absolutely. Oliver: Okay. All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: Can I -- can I ask the thought of how you -- reason how you phased this? Noriyuki: Absolutely. So, the first one, rule of thumb is practicality and financials. There is no question the phase one is the number one spot from an engineering Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 17 of 33 standpoint where we need to hook into sewer. That's number one. We need to go to the deepest point and you build your project according to how topography is. Number two, we had an opportunity to create a second entrance within our first phase, so we need to follow safety health code, ACHD policy, fire department -- we are doing a good thing out of the gate. Naturally phase two, that's just an addition to phase one. I don't want to bring on too many lots at any given time, because I want to sell them, rather -- and if I can't sell them that quick, I want to farm. And, then, phase three that I have got, that's where I step into my bigger lots, if you will, because my phase one and phase two are averaging about that 60, 65 hundred square feet, but by phase three, then, I'm able to start bringing on more of those 7,000 plus square foot lots, because I need the product diversity and a handful of other builders coming in, so we can get things moving. And, then, my phase four, that's my alley load product. That's a major component for me to add to the diversity as I progress through the project. Once again I'm not just constantly putting out the same kind of lots and the same kind of product, need to be systematic, so I'm not saturating the market. Plus Coleman is already going to be moving forward with a lot of these standard lots, if you will. I need that phase four to come in and give me some genuine diversity at the end of the day. But, also, if you look at that, that phase three automatically within -- correct me if I'm wrong, but within Coleman Homes phase four I give them a secondary connection. They can really light their project up at that point. Also we are connecting the water loops and safety, EMS, all those -- all those types of things done in my phase four, I bring on diversity for the city, I bring on tremendous amounts of open space at that point and I give Coleman their third connection, which ultimately at that point gives me four connections. I just think it's a practical -- it makes sense for everybody and also fiscally to me. I need the diversification if you will. So, that's my methodology. Yearsley: So, is phase five and phase two and three single lot sizes then? Noriyuki: Yes. Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Noriyuki: Absolutely. Phase five is -- you know, I understand it looks like I'm pushing it out there, my final phase is actually down to the south where I'm going to have the huge density, if you will, with larger multi -family and, then, some auxiliary single family and, then, finishing out a little bit of alley load. This is just a practical way and if you look at the second page, if you will put up Coleman's phase plan, if you will, and you really envision that area as far as -- they are building through the center of their project, if you will, coming into an arc slowly at phase nine towards my project. I'm coming up right through the center of mine. The sooner we connect at some level or some point it behooves everybody across the board. Now, putting in -- if you look at their ninth phase, where they would actually touch my collector, if you will, that quick in my project I have got to go from the center and, then, suddenly jump to the north and have a collector that goes nowhere -- it's a tax burden. There is no access for Coleman from a development standpoint, because they are not in the sewer shed, they need to bring Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 18 of 33 their sewer all the way up through their project, so they couldn't theoretically back track down through me -- I just don't understand it. Yearsley: I don't understand why you couldn't take part of phrase three and phrase five and make that phase three. Noriyuki: Let me -- bear with me here. So, take part of phase three -- Yearsley: Yeah. Noriyuki: -- and part of phase five and what? Yearsley: Make that part of phase three. You would be at similar lot sizes, you would get some of your bigger lots -- Noriyuki: Oh. Yearsley: -- and, then, you could construct your collector. Noriyuki: Okay. So, there is a couple of different factors. One, we got to pull back to the sewer and just the practicality of moving sewer through the property, but also drainage and irrigation is a major factor. Coursing through my phase one and my phase four are significant irrigation structures. We have got lateral -- the intersection of Black Cat and McMillan is kind of a nexus of multiple major irrigation laterals, ditches, user ditches, drainage and we -- the amount of piping that we have got to bring through this project to not only make it fiscally work, but also make it so we can continue to farm it and we are doing things appropriately -- this is appropriate. Simply going from phase one, maybe doing phase -- doing phase two and, then, jumping straight into the northern portion is -- doesn't make a lot of sense and building that collector at that point doesn't provide anything for anybody at that point, aside from a cost burden to us. It doesn't open the door to any other development. It doesn't open up any kind of connectivity, pedestrian or vehicular. It doesn't create any additional water loops. It doesn't create any additional safety. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Marshall: I'd like to ask staff for a little clarification here. We are required -- the reason staff is requesting the collector early -- it's not because of the connectivity to the other subdivision, but because we are trying to close down the other central 25 foot access and move the access to a point directly across the street from an existing access; is that correct? So, it's really not connectivity to the -- the west, is it? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Correct. Coleman can move forward with phasing its -- this phasing plan is not tied to the Coleman project. That's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 19 of 33 what he proposed when he came forward. Coleman will have to provide secondary access regardless of -- anytime you -- if his first phase came in with 51 lots, he's going to have to provide a secondary access. So, you have enough frontage on McMillan to do that. He doesn't need this development to provide that to him. Our stance is we have got a lot of development coming online here and those arterial roads aren't going to be built for quite sometime. If you look at ACHD staff report, there is thresholds when all these intersections have to be improved and not having that funding -- nothing's funded at this point out there and so we know Volterra is coming online with a collector street, we know Bainbridge has one phase done already out there -- we are going to have over 3,000 homes with arterial roads that may not be upgraded for a long time. So, the collector road will become vital -- vital connectivity in this area. And I don't disagree with Noriyuki, it -- but we need to get these improvements earlier, since we don't have the funding and this is the time to get it. It's annexation. If we -- if we want to insure that we have the adequate network and not have people come in three, four, five years from now and complain about traffic on the arterials and when are we going to widen these, this is how we try to attack that now and I know that in -- I have been at several City Council hearings over the last month and we have heard the same message. It's -- Council has asked us to take a bigger -- a harder look at these subdivisions when they come in and that's what we are trying to do this evening. Is to finally get this set up in place so we are not having to retrofit this or lose -- the other issue is we don't want to burden future homeowners with the closure of that access. Mr. Noriyuki's project doesn't need that access point to function. He could come off of Daphne with phase one as he did. That central access could be a secondary emergency access right now and he could come in and that could be his central entry point in there and still meet our ordinance. It's not needed. The collector road should really happen with the first phase and that should be the entry and -- for future development. That should set the stage for each development and create the -- Noriyuki: Not from an engineering standpoint. Parsons: But we gave in. I mean staff wasn't very supportive of that central access point and so we -- we came in with a compromise. We are like, okay, we will recognize ACHD supported that temporary access, we are not keen on it, but as long as we get it closed down within a certain -- sooner rather than later, to put the burden on the future homeowners and we can track this moving forward, that 123rd residential lot didn't make a lot of sense to us. Marshall: Now, if I recall, the COMPASS report shows upgrades to both McMillan and to Black Cat in the mid 2020s. Is that accurate? And we are talking about three lanes -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the report in front of me. I apologize. So, I can't confirm that for you this evening. Marshall: I believe that's what I recall reading it was mid 2020s and there was absolutely no anticipation of the growth that we are actually seeing out there right now. And that's a fault of our planning where they are doing that, but now we need to react to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 20 of 33 that is the message I'm getting. So, we need to be able to take that into account that that wasn't planned for -- this amount of growth wasn't planned for and now we need to find out the best way to accommodate it. Parsons: Correct. And one thing we did point out in the staff report is we recognize that deficiency and we as a planning department will continue to work with COMPASS and try to get some of those measures in place moving forward. But, you know, it takes time. So, we have development now, we have got to set the stage right. Marshall: I mean that was not just the city, but that's the regional planners and COMPASS and everybody else throughout -- nobody foresaw this area growing as soon as it did. And those things happen, so -- but you're saying that this is the best way to remedy that lack of foresight that we have as a group. Parsons: In staffs opinion, yes. Marshall: In your opinion. I appreciate that. Noriyuki: May I address that? I have got a little background on that. ACHD actually did catch that during The Oaks project with their traffic study The Oaks provided, as well as ACHD staff report and conditions of approval. It was also recognized and identified in my traffic study, as well as ACHD's conditions of approval for this project. There is a trigger point for The Oaks, as well as Jump Creek collectively on a phase -by -phase basis to update the traffic studies for off-site improvements to those major intersections. Those were things that were proved out in the traffic study and ratified by ACHD as a condition. ACHD has taken care of this, if you will, towards The Oaks and Jump Creek project. Nowhere in the traffic study for The Oaks or Jump Creek or any of the staff reports from ACHD find a necessity for this collector to come on at the 123rd lot. I do appreciate the City of Meridian wanting to have an assurance that I'm going to bring this on in a timely fashion, but I'm going to reiterate, even if The Oaks did change their phase plan, it's a long way for them to come north before they even need to connect and asking me to do that early on is, frankly, a hardship. That is where I haven't asked for unbridled 1 -will -build -it -whenever -1 -want, I'm coming back with what I believe is a reasonable number at that point. I backed it up with practicality of the adjacent properties. I backed it up by talking to ACHD. I backed it up proving out fire, life, safety, health and code and there is nothing else that is going to go there. The only other property owners to the west and to the north is The Oaks. They are the only ones. If there was some other property owner that could benefit by me bringing that online earlier I could appreciate that, but it's a fact, if you will. So, with that I will stand for any other questions or -- Marshall: Commissioners? Thank you, sir. Noriyuki: Thank you so much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 21 of 33 Marshall: All right. So, public testimony. I do not have anyone signed up, but would somebody like to testify to this? Steinbach: There is no sign -in sheets. Marshall: It has already been collected and is up here. But would you like to testify to it? Steinbach: May I ask a question -- Marshall: Please. As public testimony this will not be a question and answer period, but I would appreciate it if you could ask your questions and, hopefully, later we would be able to respond to some of those. So, if you're going -- if you're going to testify and place statements out, I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record and I would appreciate that very much. Steinbach: Mr. Commission, thank you for your latitude. My name is Max Steinbach. am the property just exactly east of what we are talking about right here. We are in Black Cat Estates, Lot 1, Block 1. Two things. The collector at Daphne -- and hopefully can -- I have been trying to read this thing as we have looked up here, because the overlay doesn't really -- there is a burden on Black Cat already as far as traffic with the connector from the Emmett Highway -- they either come east and come down Black Cat or west and go down Star, because McDermott does not cross. We already have a tremendous amount of traffic flow, which we haven't had in a long, long time. Just listening to Scott talk -- I'm hoping I'm hearing this correct. They are looking at a multiple family dwelling on the southeast corner of the property, which is directly across from our properties. With that type of traffic and that volume right there at the intersection, my concern is how they are going to handle that when he alluded to the fact that there would be no access on McMillan Road. That would be dump them right on Black Cat at the intersection. Scott and I visited a little earlier here about water. am the water master for that area. You have a serious amount of water that comes from a lot of different directions, including his property. So, I understand his concern with the sidewalk, because that ditch would probably bury all of your cars and most of family. That's a huge drainage ditch. So, there is a lot of things that we have not had the privilege to look at a plot plan or anything else as to what's going on. My only heartburn would be a multiple family, which would be medium high density is the way read this, which puts a lot of homes right there on the corner. That I'm not -- for selfish reasons I'm not particularly impressed with those right there on the corner. Daphne is a small road. It, basically, was put in to service our subdivision. It goes east maybe a quarter, half a mile and then -- and comes back in on McMillan Road. So, that would be my only concern is those particular issues and the traffic flow, then, with one central collector at Daphne, which is the end of Mr. and Mr. Arendse's property and would be just north of my property. We both share that intersection at Daphne and Black Cat. So, that's, basically, my concerns as far as that particular portion, because that puts a lot of families in a concentrated area right on a busy intersection. Other than that I don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 22 of 33 have anything at this time. I'd love to look at a plot plan just to kind of see how this is going to flow, but other than that I have no questions. Thank you for your time. Marshall: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Yearsley: No. Marshall: Thank you very much. Steinbach: And one other thing before I go, sir. Thank you again for the time. But we are not in Meridian. Our subdivision is still Ada County. So, has that been annexed, then, into Meridian, that property yet, or is it still Ada County? Marshall: We will be able to answer that in just a minute. Steinbach: Thank you. Marshall: Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else who would like to testify to this? No one else. Mr. Noriyuki, I would ask that you, please, come back and be able to address anything that might have come up. Noriyuki: Thank you. Scott Noriyuki with Northside for the record. A couple of things want to address. First of all, regarding the multi -family on the south. Absolutely agree. This project -- that's why it's my final phase and at that point I can justify bringing on multi -family and the reason why is once we hit that final phase that -- at that point we and/or The Oaks collectively have already triggered and funded all of the off -sight improvements to all of these intersections and these roadways above and beyond The Oaks and Jump Creek. So, these intersections are set up to where, one, they can handle it. Number two, they are funded. They are funded on the backs of developers at the end of the day. I do want to point that out. Secondary, I want to point out it is my final phase. It's quite a ways out. The way -- the reason why we -- we platted that as -- or we are proposing to plat it as a singular lot at this point is because it is so far into the future we want some flexibility on that property. Do we know exactly what it's going to look like right now? Absolutely not. But regardless, the -- the traffic, the entrances, the off -sites will be addressed prior. And with that I will stand for any questions. Marshall: Commissioners? No? Thank you, sir. Noriyuki: Thank you so much. Marshall: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of anyone else, anything else you would like to -- yes? No? Then I guess I am looking for a motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing. Freeman: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 23 of 33 Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 14-001 and PP 14-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: All right. Thoughts and comments, Commissioners. I'm going to jump in here. I do appreciate very much the mix and after reading Mrs. McKay's comments and some of the other comments that have gone, I do understand the point they are trying to make, but I -- again, I like the fact that we have a difference -- differences of opinion on how -- how things should be laid out and the like. I am -- you know, this isn't necessarily how I would lay them out, but I like to see other people lay things out differently. I do have some concerns and I'm rather torn on the collector, to be honest. That -- again, as Mr. Noriyuki -- Noriyuki said, this could take years. Could be quite a while. And I worry about possibly some of the other things building out even faster and, then, we not having any connectivity through there and I believe that's what the city is saying is because the arterials are not planned -- and I did read the COMPASS report. They are not due out -- they are on the future wish list for the mid 2020s. 2020 and up. They are on that wish list. That means they are not funded. The intersection -- and I'm sure Commissioners Yearsley will I hope address this also from years on the traffic task force -- even though those triggers get hit at, oh, geez, we have to build this, the funding is not necessarily there and it can be five, six years after the trigger gets hit before we see something. We have screamed and yelled until my face is red, you know, at ACHD. We have got to have this. It's got to be now. We have been doing that all over the city and we have seen some vast improvement in some of that. We really have. But there is no guarantee that once those triggers are hit that those infrastructure improvements are made in a timely fashion. We have seen it over and over again. I do -- I do have -- I'm also torn on the sidewalk, because that's a considerable cost. If we have got to tile -- it's got to be done eventually, but if you have got to come up with that kind of money up front that can be -- this is a good enough project that we are talking some very considerable up front costs that may take some -- that we are asking for, that staff is asking for, that could take considerable time to recover. I don't know -- sometimes consider that a little bit of the cost of doing business, but we have got a unique situation there where I understand that we are, as part of this development agreement, staff is recommending requirements that would require considerable up front costs and would take some time to recover and I think that is a little bit of a burden. But at the same time we have got a unique situation where the rest of the infrastructure hasn't been planned and we got ourselves into this corner. Do we go ahead and allow this and, then, find ourselves down the road, five, six years -- because this, as you stated, may take years to do -- now we funneling everything onto McMillan from -- from the west and everything here is still going out at a 25 foot driveway, closer to the intersection -- I worry about that sidewalk getting kids to school. If this builds out and, then, sits for a while -- somehow gets postponed, how are those kids going to get to school. We have run into that situation a number of times and have had to start requiring sidewalks be built along pasture land -- I can point out a number of places all over town where we have got large parcels of pasture land where we have got sidewalk now, because we have started Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 24 of 33 requiring it. If you want to build anymore you're going to have to build this -- well, I recall one at 950 foot of sidewalk that we had to require, because nobody could walk to school and we were having to do busing, even through everything was within a half a mile. We were having to safety bus, because there were no sidewalks. That becomes a burden on the school system and that's with taxpayers. So, it's a double edge sword here and I'm -- and other concern I did have was -- I really appreciate the diversity and the open space and things like that. I did have a little bit of concern about the swales and the storage facility, because of the way the UDC is written, it says that it's acceptable to put in a dry creek bed or other design features and I'm not sure quite what clearly defines an other design feature. I don't know if -- I'd lock that down to a dry creek bed, if we are going to put rock in there. But those are my thoughts. I do appreciate the diversity and the thought in there. I do believe all the streets -- when I look at the streets they appear to be exactly 90 degrees. I mean there is compound curves going and they appear to hit the property lines in exactly 90 degrees in each case, even though maybe that curve is coming around it's in a curve when it hits, that seems to be perfectly acceptable and fully meets code. I really appreciate the addressing all the other concerns. I appreciate that. So, I guess on a couple issues there I'm torn and I'm just telling you I have got both sides going on here. Commissioner Freeman? Freeman: Sure. Yeah. This may not be the last time I speak on this one. Where do want to start? There are some very commendable things about the proposal here. I, too, love the diversity. The fact that you are intending to be so diverse I think kind of by default and as you explained answers a lot of the concerns of your neighboring development. Different philosophies in a lot of cases. I also really appreciate the fact that you worked with them so closely -- to understand their phasing, got your roads aligned, but that's all great. I like this project. I, too, am torn. But I have a question that I want to throw out in reference to some of what you were saying, because I want to be corrected if I'm seeing this wrong. But it seems to that if we as a city require this collector to go in early all we are really -- we are kind of hedging a bet a little bit, because we don't know -- we don't have a crystal ball, we don't know timing wise how all this stuff is going to come together. We don't know. We may have issues. We may not. We may end up asking the developer to build this and phase nine or the phasing changes on the other property and it all goes in and we have this wonderful connectivity. It may be that we ask for that to be built and it truly is not functional for years until these other streets -- we don't know. So, it's really -- you know, how much value do we give that? Are we going to maybe gain something by it? Maybe. Maybe not. The other thing that's really in the forefront of my thinking -- a couple of things. know staff did not arbitrarily put these requirements for the sidewalk and the collector on -- on the applicant. They are good reasons for it. We are under pressure now. We see some issues coming. We want to do something and this is something we can do. I get that. On the other hand, your reasoning, your rationale, your phasing, very compelling, very rational, very logical, it makes a lot of sense from the developer's standpoint. We have a dilemma. We have to go one way or the other and I don't disagree with staff. don't disagree with you. But we have to -- and where is that somewhere in the middle? Well, given the way the project is developed, I don't think there is a somewhere in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 25 of 33 middle. I think we have to go one way or the other on this and I think I know where I tend to go, but I will share that in a minute after I hear some other commissioners, because this is a dialogue right now, I guess. I give up my spot. Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman. I understand -- again, I like the diversity. I like how it's done. You know, he keep talking about this collector being for The Oaks. Personally, I think it's for his subdivision. It gives his subdivision and his residents another access point to get to Ten Mile and for me I think that's going to be critical, because I think McMillan and -- is going to be pretty backed up, because Ten Mile is the interchange road and that's the one that's getting improved sooner. So, personally I see that that collector is more for his subdivision than for The Oaks, because I think they are going to want to follow the path of least resistance and it's easier to cross the street than it is to turn against traffic and try to go back to that collector. So, I have a tendency -- I agree with staff that I think that the -- requiring it to be done at the 129th is actually a good idea -- or the 123rd lot. And I think the phasing -- I understand where he's coming from, but still think the phasing could be adjusted slightly, that it wouldn't be a huge cost burden for him to -- to put that in. As for the sidewalk, I understand about the -- the irrigation ditch and the cost of tiling that at the time and maybe a compromise might be in order for the phasing of how that -- you know, a lot of the roadways ACHD is allowing a curb and, then, an additional piece of asphalt on the side of the street for people to walk to give them some sort of a buffer and that way it may not affect his lateral, that we can still have some pedestrian access down -- down that portion of it. I see it on Maple Grove quite a bit, that they have provided that and it seems to work in the interim. So, you know, that might be a possibility to do. You know, that cost wouldn't be a huge burden. You may not have to bury the ditch and stuff like that, so -- so, those are kind of my thoughts with this, but I think for me personally I think it's not for The Oaks, that collector, it's for his subdivision to get out and potentially get to Ten Mile -- give them an alternate route to Ten Mile. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I appreciate that opinion. On the other hand, probably if we were to have the applicant come back up he would disagree with you. He may not disagree that, yeah, it -- it does offer an additional connection point, but at what cost? And in the applicant's mind it's pretty clear. So, for me I'm -- yeah, I don't disagree. It would benefit his subdivision from a circulation standpoint, but is the circulation standpoint and the traffic flow standpoint really the highest item that we and he are dealing with and I think not. I think maybe -- in my mind it's secondary. But I agree it's a factor. Yearsley: Well -- and, you know, his ultimate goal is to sell lots and my opinion is if you can't get out of your subdivision you're not going to sell lots, you know. That's -- and we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 26 of 33 -- when we actually built our -- bought our house in Meridian we looked at traffic as one of the issues of where we built -- or bought a house. Freeman: You would do that. Yearsley: Yes. And knowing how to get to work and where my work was, we picked an area that was easier for me to get to work. Marshall: Commissioners, I would ask this: If say -- we will say if it were for his subdivision and his subdivision alone, why, then, would he have to built the entire collector? Why not just a portion of it until the rest of it builds out? I mean I essentially -- the collector would be fine if you tied into that first intersection and just went back to the first intersection right there, if that were the purpose. Freeman: So, Mr. Chair, you just proposed one of those elusive compromises that didn't see. Yearsley: And I actually -- I don't think that that's not a bad -- bad compromise. Marshall: Well, I don't think the city proffered that up, simple because their thought is actually those house -- or houses on the other side that they are hoping would use that. But I have to agree with the argument that we don't know when that's doing to build out and do we -- but, then, again, we don't know when this is going to be built out either. would love to see this northern area as an earlier phase and allow it to build down to the south, but I also understand the infrastructure, having done a lot of designs myself you always start at the low point and branch up -- Yearsley: Yes. Marshall: -- I'm very familiar with that. So, I guess, you know, again, that's -- that's an issue to determine in your own mind as to whether what is the purpose of requiring that and depending on your answer, then, you have different options or your hands are tied one way or another. Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I grew up in this area and I know the land out there, the farmland, and I know that it's -- it's important to have that drainage -- that creek available, that -- the canal available. But I agree with what you say, putting it in in that first phase. I think that sounds like a good idea, but I also think if you have connector to that point they still should put that sidewalk all the way up. Other than that it looks good and I like the diversity of the plan. It's going to -- it's going to happen, because you can see it happening -- as soon as Walmart opens up, it's just going to go crazy out there. So, you can't stop it. I just want it to be a good development and I think that the comment staff made about City Council being -- saying that we need to be more responsible and look a little harder at these subdivisions coming in and I -- that's the thing -- having grown up here that I worry about that here we are putting in so many more homes out there and how are we going to get around when especially Black Cat is not going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 27 of 33 looked at for some time and, then, I think about the intersection of McMillan and Black Cat, that's the first thing that's going to happen is that eventually they will widen that -- have to widen that out for that intersection, lights are going to have to go in and, then, eventually put lights down further towards the north for that school crossing -- it's all going to be there. It's going to be in place. So, we might as well get it done while we can and still waiting until its already too late, you know, so -- Marshall: So, Commissioner Oliver, are you advocating the entire collector or just the -- Oliver: I think it's great how you said it. Just put that portion in. If that's possible. Freeman: At the 123rd -- Oliver: Yes. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I'm just going to reveal the rest of my cards here, so that you all know where stand on this. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, I think we would appreciate that. Freeman: If -- if I'm going to make the motion and the decision is up to me and realizing that it may end up proving out to be the wrong decision, what I'm going with is this is a good development. It's diversity. This is an area that's going to develop. Eventually all these problems are going to be worked out. This development ought to happen. The city should be glad to have this development. If I were to roll the dice right now, honestly -- and the fact that we want to keep the farming that -- that northern area, would actually propose -- my motion would be that we allow the sidewalks to go as the phases are developed and that we allow an additional phase before we do that collector and we go with the 222nd. That's -- that's where my mind stands right now. Marshall: Appreciate that, Commissioner. Freeman: And if you would like I can make a motion and we will see if anybody else agrees with that. Marshall: Well, I -- I think you have got a challenge ahead of you. Freeman: Unless you want further discussion beforehand. Yearsley: Well -- Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 28 of 33 Yearsley: I like Marshall's idea of at least going -- at minimum going to the first intersection of the collector, but I think we need to have a sidewalk or a pathway to that collector. Freeman: The one that collector's built -- I believe so. Yearsley: Well -- and, you know, there is even a -- I still see it in my subdivision. I have been there ten years and I still cannot get a safe way to Victory really, because there is no sidewalks getting from my -- my subdivision to the north side of Victory or north side of Over -- or Eagle Road. So, personally, I would prefer to, you know, at least see some sort of a pathway or access path to that collector with the first phase or even with the second phase, not knowing when that school is going to be built. Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, I would ask you this: If there is no collector who do you build it to? Yearsley: Well, I think you have to build it to where the collector is going to end. Marshall: So, just to -- Freeman: Well, I believe that's what's here in the staffs recommendations, right, is we build it up to -- even thought the collector is not there yet, but this is at its first phase, we are going to build it to that point right now. Marshall: But I don't believe there is any curb and sidewalk on that -- on Black Cat at all, it's just rural arterial there -- minor arterial rural. So, we are requiring -- and I'm just trying to clarify this for my own understanding -- what staff's asking for, where we require that with first phase, second phase -- one hundredth phase, it doesn't matter, if it goes in prior to the collector, then, there is going to be a concrete sidewalk that just goes up along the field and stops. Now, it will be directly across the street from an intersection where a school is going in in the future and, to be honest, some of the schools have taken longer than anticipated, because of funding and things like that, but there is going to be a need out there very, very soon with all of this -- this construction going on, with all this building there will be a -- in the very near future and so pretty much the next half mile over all that is going to be feeding across here to the school. Now -- and that's both traffic pathways and pedestrian pathways, how do we get to that school and at what point. Freeman: Well, this project can't answer that question entirely. This project can only partially answer that by taking it so far and we don't know if that's actually going to pay off or not. Marshall: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 29 of 33 Freeman: And I want to -- you said it, Mr. Chair, we see a sidewalk here on paper. Sidewalks are a very simple matter. This sidewalk is not a very simple matter. It's over ditches with a lot of water and it's going to inhibit the ability of the northern property to be used for its intended purpose. It's not going to be a weed field, it's going to be farmed -- I just have doubt -- I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I have doubt that we are really going to get the benefit out of the extended sidewalk and building the collector in the earlier phase and with that doubt I hate to put that burden upon the developer who wants to get this thing going, not even knowing if it's really going to help. Although it could. It could help. At what cost do we gamble that? Marshall: Again, can I go back to -- Bill, would you put up the phase plan, please? I would appreciate taking another look at that. Thank you, sir. He is offering -- he made the offer to finish that sidewalk with phase two, I believe. So, you can see phase one up to here and, then, phase two just that little bit more and, then, we will have connection right there with the second phase. Freeman: Yes. Yearsley: So, can I jump in here really quick? Marshall: Please. Yearsley: Bill, that connector across the street will be built soon; correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, my understanding early -- later this fall or early spring, yes. Yearsley: Okay. You're asking where that sidewalk is going to go. That sidewalk is going to go to that connect -- that collector. Per ACHD requirements he is going to have to put that sidewalk up and, then, provide an access path or an access to Black Cat Road, so they could potentially cross the street to get that -- to that collector and that gives someone who wants bike or ride a safe access to that collector to get on the sidewalk to get over to Eagle Road. So, for me I think it needs to go in phase one. Like I said, I don't know if that's a preference to be a sidewalk or at least a pathway beside the existing roadway, I would go -- I could go either way on that one, but I still think that collector across the street will be built prior to him building phase one. So, that does give an access for kids, parents, bicyclists to not be on a main roadway or a narrow highway traffic two way roadway at all times. That's where the collector is going to go. Marshall: So, you have put that burden to the the all that for 55 lots. Yearsley: Well, the thing is, though, like I said, I'm okay putting it next to Black Cat Road and have like an extruded curb. That to me is a pathway. Marshall: And having an extruded curb on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 30 of 33 Yearsley: Right next to -- Marshall: Now, is ACHD going to allow that? I mean -- because, remember, you have all that drainage there -- that's a rural drainage going to a swale. Yearsley: Yes. But I think -- I think they would allow that, because a lot of times they will do curb -- there will be cuts, so you can allow drainage to come through. So, that might be an option. But I still think we need to provide access for his subdivision to that collector for some pedestrian access, because I still think it's -- Marshall: So, phase two is not early enough for you? Yearsley: No. Freeman: I think phase to is early enough for me if that's being offered. Marshall: I would also suggest phase two being early enough for me, because there is going to be considerable investment to tile all that ditch and put the sidewalk down. I'd like to see the finished product. I don't want to put in a temporary one and, then, have to -- the next phase have to put in a permanent one. I just don't see -- you know, if -- if we were talking putting in that sidewalk at phase four or five I would say absolutely a temporary is probably a very good, viable solution, but we are talking about putting the -- a temporary one until we put the permanent one in the very next phase and I don't -- don't see the viability of a temporary one and, then, requiring a permanent one in. Freeman: Mr. Chairman, we are probably not going to come to full agreement between the four of us. I'm sensing that at this point. If I may, I would like to make a motion and we will see where we stand on this motion. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, I would appreciate you giving it a shot and see if you have a second. Freeman: Okay. I'm making this up as I go. Marshall: That's all any of us can do. Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 14-011 and PP 14-013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 8th, 2014, with the following modifications -- and this is where I'm going to ad Iib a bit. Under Condition 1.2.11D, that we modify the 123rd residential lot to read the 222nd residential lot and under one point -- Condition 1.1.1C, that we modify the first phase of development to the second phase of development for the applicant having to construct the five foot wide detached sidewalk to the north boundary of West Daphne to the south boundary of West Malta Drive. I think those are my conditions. The changes. Modifications. I'm not hearing a second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 31 of 33 Oliver: I second. Marshall: Oh, I do have a motion and a second. So, all those in favor say aye. Freeman: Aye. Oliver: Aye. Marshall: Opposed? Yearsley: Aye. Marshall: Aye. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. Marshall: So -- Freeman: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question then? If I were to modify my motion, so that the collector was partially built up to that first intersection at the 123rd lot development, I -- Marshall: You might get another vote. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I'm going to try this one more time. I probably have to repeat the whole thing or can I -- yes. Okay. This is fun. I'm going to be tired by the end of the night. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 14-011 and PP 14-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 18th, 2014, with the following modifications: That Condition 1.2.1 D be modified to read that the collector road West Malta Drive will be built up to the first intersecting road within the subdivision with the approval of the 123rd residential lot and that with the second phase of development on Condition 1.1.1C, that the second phase of development would be when the five foot wide detached sidewalk as specified be constructed. Marshall: I can't second anything, so -- it appears we have no second. Freeman: Okay. Marshall: Okay, gentlemen, we have a stalemate here. Shall we see if we can find another compromise possibly? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 32 of 33 Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I will try this one, then. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 14-001 and PP 14-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 8th, 2014, with the following modifications -- and I will have to apologize, don't have the -- the numbers in front me, but to modify the condition to require the collector street to be built only to the first intersection after the hundred and twenty -- sorry -- 123rd lot and to -- actually, that would be the only modification then. Does that make sense? Because the sidewalk would be constructed. That's already a condition for the sidewalk to be constructed, so -- or to modify -- can I change that just a little bit or do I need to start over? Baird: It hasn't been seconded, so, yes, you can modify it. Yearsley: That a pathway or the sidewalk be constructed as part of phase one to the collector street. Oliver: I would second that. Freeman: May I ask for a clarification? temporary ACHD approved -- Yearsley: Correct. Freeman: -- pathway, not a sidewalk. Yearsley: Correct. By the pathway are you talking about a Marshall: I have a first and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Well, gentlemen, we got through it. Is there another motion out there? Freeman: Wait. I might want to modify this one. Are we going to be in disagreement on this? Yearsley: I'm going to let -- Freeman: Oh. Okay. Yearsley: -- Commissioner Oliver make this one. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 2, 2014 Page 33 of 33 Marshall: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move to adjourn. Yearsley: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adjourn Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:43 P.M. All those in favor say aye. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED MARSHALL - CHAIRMAN ti 1 16 114 DATE APPROVED ATTEST: NiCe,hJ1.4'z"-, NOPIA56�:' JAYCEE HOLMAN, C TY CLE K i GO44ORATkkD AUCUSTz, 9O z city Of �vLE IDIAN�' SES !V J �yrfB °t the TA4PSVQ0