Loading...
2015 11-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 5, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 5, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present:, Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver ___X_ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of November 5th, 2015, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I have no changes to the agenda today, so with that can we get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? McCarvel: So moved. I'm sorry. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 15, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15- 018 Blimpie by Shelley Uzzel Savage Located 1535 N. Main Street Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 2 of 48 Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-C Zoning District Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive-Thru and Within 300 Feet of a Residence Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on the Consent Agenda we have the approved minutes of October 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 15-018, Blimpie. If there is no changes could I get a motion to adopt -- or to approve the Consent Agenda. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move we adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So, before we go any further I kind of want to explain how this process will go today. We will open each item one at a time and we will start off with the staff report. The staff report will -- the staff will actually present their findings and how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. After they have had their report the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward and he will present his case for approval and respond to any of the staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to present his application. After the applicant has completed we will open it up to the public testimony. There is sign-up sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify. Any person wanting to testify can come forward and they will be given up to three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA or multiple people in the audience they will be given up to ten minutes . After all testimony -- public testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the comments from the -- from the public and he will be given another ten minutes to respond to the comments. After that point we will close the public hearing and, then, the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from October 1, 2015: AZ 15-013 Bull Ranch by Gem State ER, LLC Located 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 3 of 48 B. Public Hearing Continued from October 1, 2015: PP 15-017 Bull Ranch Subdivision by Gem State ER, LLC Located 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from October 1, 2015, of AZ 15-013 and PP 15-007, Bull Ranch Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- as you said, a preliminary plat and annexation for Bull Ranch Subdivision. The -- get here to the aerials. So, this is the -- location is south of Chinden, just southeast of the Zamzow's on Chinden Boulevard. This is an annexation for 10.06 acres of land, 48 residential single family homes -- or single family lots I should say and nine common lots. There is an existing home on the -- on the property that will remain as part of the subdivision and access to the site will be from the Hightower Subdivision to the east and from the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision just to the south of the property. They meet the open space requirements with 1.1 -- 1.01 acres or a little over ten percent as required by code. 10.2 percent to be exact. They have also included a number of amenities, including a picnic area, a community garden, and a micropath connection to the church property just to the north as you see here This is the layout of the proposed subdivision and some of the concerns that the applicant may have are we are requiring that they include this -- it's a little difficult to see, but there is an open space component here in the center. In our conditions of approval we have required them to include that as part of phase one , as well as connect the existing home to phase one with utilities and , then, close the access -- there is a private access from this current property up to Chinden called Elk Ranch Lane that we are conditioning them to remove as part of the -- the first phase prior to receiving any occupancy or final plat approval. Additionally, ACHD is still reviewing the application, but our understanding is that they will not approve this traffic circle as proposed by the applicant. Again, this is a better shot of the interior landscaping that they are proposing. And some proposed elevations for the homes that will be built. Are there any questions? Yearsley: Any questions? No? So, with that would the applicant like to come forward? Densmer: Yes. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jason Densmer with The Land Group. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. Josh, I -- there we go. Yearsley: Could we get your address as well? Densmer: Yeah. I'm sorry. My office address is 462 East Shore Drove in Eagle. Thank you very much. I think Josh has done a fantastic job of laying out kind of the meat and potatoes of the application and I did want to bring you up to speed on a couple of things. First off, I'd like to talk about the ACHD input that we have recently received and, then, I will come back and talk about a few of our concerns with the staff report. So, first ACHD has expressed to us during initial meetings with them concerns about traffic calming. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 4 of 48 Bull Ranch project being adjacent to Hightower to the east will be able to continue a street along the south side and as proposed the length of that street was getting up to the point where ACHD was worried that it was just too long of a straight road and so they asked us to look at options to provide traffic calming. The traffic circle that Josh mentioned was our attempt to meet that request. Looking at other developments in the area a traffic circle is a pretty common feature in north Meridian and so we thought it might be an appropriate traffic calming feature. Evidently, though, ACHD has recently moved away from that as a design element and they are no longer in favor of those. So, their most recent request to us was to come back with something like what you see on the right here, which are choker islands or bump outs where we would bring the island in in order to slow traffic down through that same area. So, you can see on the left -- what you have in your application packet is the traffic circle and what ACHD has asked us to move towards is the bump outs on the -- on the right-hand side. Through e-mail and discussion with them they are supportive of that -- that change. It does change the project matrix a little bit where, actually, the change reduces the amount of right of way being dedicated and we are able to convert that right of way land area into open space and so the change from traffic circle to bump outs increases our common area by a few hundredths of an acre and increased our qualified open space from the 10.2 percent that Josh mentioned up to 10.5 percent. Again, it's not a monumental change, but I did want to make sure that the record was clear on that potential change at ACHD's request and its impacts on the project numbers. Regarding the conditions of approval in the staff report, on the whole we are very supportive of staff's recommendations and the few items that we do have to take exception with tonight really follows the two categories. First off staff's approach to phasing and how to incorporate the existing home on the parcel and, then, secondly, a few conditions about fencing, which we think could be clarified. It has a mind of its own. Beach: Probably messing with it. I apologize. Densmer: As you know the existing home was built about 15 years ago. It's at the northwest corner of the parcel and it has historically been accessed via a private road connection that goes north and south along the west side of the church parcel and takes access from Chinden. The access po ints that we can take advantage of for the development of the parcel, though, are at the opposite end of the parcel at the southeast corner and so we have proposed a phase one that takes access from Hightower and Saguaro Canyon Subdivisions and provides access to the first phase of lots. Staff's conditions have asked us to vacate the private road to the existing home and change its access internally with phase one. It's really, unfortunately, impractical to do that, since the home is as far away as it could possibly be from where we will be bringing the roads into the project. We would like to request that conditions be revised in order to allow us to maintain the existing driveway through phase one, recognizing that it will only serve the existing home. All of the new lots would take access through Hightower and Saguaro Canyon. We would certainly vacate that existing easement and close the private drive when new internal streets can be provided to the existing home during phase two. There are other conditions of approval regarding connecting the existing home to utilities. Again, our utility connections, like the roads, are coming from the opposite end of the project from where the home is located. Today the house is connected to a well and septic system. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 5 of 48 The sewer for the house is at the southeast corner of the house and so we certainly think by building a little bit of extra sewer that wouldn't normally be required in phase one, we can extend sewer and get it to the existing house, as you kind of see here in green, we could build that portion of sewer in order to allow us to connect the house during phase one. The water connection for the house today is a well on the northeast corner. I'm sorry. The northwest corner of the house and we really have no practical way to get a new City of Meridian water main anywhere near the house's water connection during phrase one. It's simply too far -- too far away and too far out of the phase to do that. So, we would request that the conditions of approval regarding utility connections to the house be adjusted and require only that we connect sewer during phase one and, then, connect the water during phase two when those connect ions can be made. Lastly, we have a small condition in the staff report that addresses perimeter fencing. Before submitting the application we wanted to make sure we were clear on city's requirements in code and staff did confirm that the UDC doesn't require perimeter fencing for subdivision projects. We would propose that we install perimeter fencing on the north boundary of the project against the existing church, because it is a developed land use and we just think it's appropriate on that -- on that boundary. The west perimeter of the project is an undeveloped ten acre parcel that is -- we think that has been presented to the city for development, although I don't think that you have an active application that you're reviewing. But we certainly think the development of that parcel is imminent and we would much prefer to be able to work with that developer and share potentially in the installation cost of a fence on that boundary, as opposed to being required to do it by the city and, therefore, kind of having our hand forced, so to speak. I can point out that the existing home has been there for 15 years against the undeveloped property. Has never had a fence and the resident of that house -- the owner of that house will continue to own it after the project is done, so certainly they would not be objectionable to continuing to not have a fence, as long as there is undeveloped property adjacent to them to the west. So, I went through a lot of that kind of quickly and so I'd like to, if I could, take the opportunity to hand out just a quick summary sheet where -- I better stop talking after I get off the microphone. I have just a quick summary that I have laid out how we think the conditions of approval could be edited in ordinary to reflect the request that we have made. So, I don't know if you would like me to read the recommended conditions and our requested changes or if you would just like to review those yourselves and, then, decide. I think that the edits you will find are -- are pretty minor and really just serve to clarify how phasing around the existing house can better accommodate the project and how we think we can work better with the neighbor on the fencing conditions. With that I don't think I have anything further, unless you have questions for me. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I just have a couple. You mentioned that north -- you would put fencing on the north and, then, that you want to do -- later on down the road east with that developer or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 6 of 48 whatever. But I didn't hear you say anything the south and the -- excuse me -- on the west. On this south and east. Is that already fenced? Densmer: Yes. That was already -- those sides are already fenced. Oliver: Okay. Yearsley: I have a couple of questions. Did you have one? Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Yearsley: So, can you go back to your utility plan? So, you're proposing to pull water off of the -- I guess it's the northwest corner for that existing lot; correct? Yes. For the existing home? Densmer: That's correct. There is a shared drive that extends to the west from the bulb of the cul-de-sac there and the utilities for both the lots north of the shared driveway and for the existing house would be in that shared driveway. Yearsley: Do you know if that home has an existing -- a basement of any kind or -- do you know? Densmer: No, I don't believe it does. Yearsley: Why couldn't we put a meter not too far from where your service line for the sewer is and connect the house that way? It's a shorter run and you could actually do that as part of phase one. Densmer: It would still require additional out of phase improvements. The waterline would have be extended in that road beyond the phase one boundary and it would take a greater amount of rework inside the existing home. The existing well is more or less where those blue bubbles go towards -- on the north side of the home there. So, the connections to the waterline on that side, which we will need to build anyway, are -- are very simple to make and it doesn't require nearly the amount of retrofit inside the home. Yearsley: Okay. I was just looking at your comments, just so I can make sure I didn't have any others. Any other questions? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Actually, can I start with -- Josh, what's staff's concern with having this in phase one versus phase two? Beach: It meets code to be connected. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 7 of 48 McCarvel: Okay. Beach: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Densmer: Commissioner McCarvel? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Densmer: There is no objection to connecting it. I don't find in code that it's required to be connected in phase one. It would be required to connect at the time that the street in front of there are developed. Yearsley: I thought it was -- if it's being annexed it has to be connected within six months of annexation, if I'm not mistaken, and staff might want to clarify that. Parsons: Sure. Council Members. The way the ordinance is written in Title 9 it requires upon annexation that it be done within 60 days of annexation. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons; So, that's where we are landing on doing it with the first phase of the final plat. Yearsley: Okay. All right. Any of other questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I can go by Fred. So, the east and the south are both fenced currently, which is kind of a precedent setting for what you're bringing forward now, would you agree? I mean you have a -- this is a blank piece of land before, you're having fencing all the way around it, so why are we saying we don't want anything to the west? Densmer: I guess I really couldn't comment on why previous people did what they did. Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay. I think it's just -- it's kind of a precedence that's already been set and I -- I mean that was kind of a hard one for me, but I will wait to hear more later. Densmer: Okay. Yearsley: All right. Thank you very much. Densmer: My pleasure. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 8 of 48 Yearsley: I do have a couple people signed up. A Jordan Donson. Danson. Okay. Karen De -- De Grasia: De Grasia. Yearsley: Do you want to come forward ? No. No. No. We have to have it through the microphone so we can have it recorded. Sorry. And, then, if you could, give your name and address for the record on the microphone. De Grasia: It's Karen De Grasia. 6197 North Rosa Springs in Meridian, Idaho, and we are in the Hightower Subdivision and what -- most of us back there border the houses along the -- well, it's our western perimeter. We would be their eastern perimeter of the development. And when we went to the preliminary meeting for this we were told that there would be mixed number of houses , single story, two stories, and we are opposed to this, simply because we all have pretty short houses along there and if you're going to build two story houses right behind us -- we don't have very much backyard, because ours are -- what do you call it? I can't even think of it now. You know, maintenance -- Yearsley: Patio homes? De Grasia: Patio homes. Thank you. That was the word I was looking for. And so we don't have a lot of backyard and so we are concerned with you guys blocking all of our lights along there. So, we are wondering if there is some way to restrict those houses behind us to one story. And the other question we had -- when I bought the house I was told that I have an additional six inches behind my fence line that is actually my property. I don't have a clue why they didn't move the fence back six inches, but addressed this issue the last time and I didn't get much of an answer as to why -- are you just going to come up and hook onto my fence and take that as your backyard behind us. So, we just kind of wanted some clarification and I'm not sure this is the right format to do it, but -- Yearsley: This is great. We will take the notes down and, then, the applicant will have a chance to respond to your comments. I did have one question. On those existing homes are they all single story? De Grasia: I think there is a couple that are two story, but they are really low profile two story. Yearsley: Okay. De Grasia: Yeah. Yearsley: All right. So -- is that all you had? De Grasia: Yeah. I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 9 of 48 Yearsley: Well, I will call -- De Grasia: I think there is only one on the street, actually, that's a two story. Yearsley: Okay. De Grasia: I think the rest are all -- I'm pretty certain all the rest are single story. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. De Grasia: Uh-huh. Yearsley: The next one I have on the list is Leanne Majors. Don't want to testify. Okay. Paula Woodland. You want to -- okay. All right. At that point I will open it up. Anybody else that would like to come and testify? Please come forward. Montieth: Good evening. My name is Jim Montieth. I live on Rosa Springs Avenue also, close to Karen who was just speaking and I have got a couple concerns about traffic being dumped onto Rosa Springs Avenue. On a street that really isn't wide enough and intended for that much traffic. That's the only way out of this Elk Ranch Road and also there is an easement I was told -- behind our property there is a barbwire fence about five or six foot out from our plastic fence and I was told that's a right of way for the runoff water from the storm drainage and want to know is that going to be honored? Are they going to have to honor that easement or were they going to pave right over it or build the houses right over it? Yearsley: Okay. Montieth: So, my concerns are the traffic onto Rosa Sprin gs that's going to be -- going to be increased by considerable with 40 or 50 houses going up back there and that's my objections. My comments. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Again, name and address for the record, please. Densmer: Thank you. Jason Densmer. The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle for the applicant. Thank you very much. I did have a chance to quickly read Code Section 9-1-4A and I think it's quite clear that water connections are required when the street adjacent to a property has a water main in it within 60 days and I don't believe that that condition would apply here. I think it's certainly within your ability to approve our request without being in violation of any -- any code provision. I think that's really all that I can add to what we have already discussed. Yearsley: Can you at least respond to the public testimony questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 10 of 48 Densmer: I'm afraid I don't know where Rosa Springs Street is. I do know that we are certainly going to comply with all of ACHD's conditions of approval and that the street sections we are proposing within the project are commensurate with the street sections that have been developed by the subdivisions adjacent to us and all of that was done, of course, in accordance with ACHD's plan for streets within the county. As far as limiting or restricting the homes along the east boundary, I don't think that that's something that we are able to offer. I think that what we have proposed are homes that are, again, compatible with other developments adjacent to us and we will end up being neighbors that are very similar to those adjacent to us both to the east and to the south. There is no discrepancy, really, between the housing types that are proposed and those that already exist around us. Yearsley: Please. We can't have any other testimony. Okay. And, then, the -- the one that talked about the fence -- their fence they said is six inches in. Do you know if that's correct? I'm assuming you did the survey that located that fence on your boundary? Densmer: We did do certainly a very detailed survey and we located both the property lines and the fences and we didn't find that the fences were further away from the property line than you would customarily find . Certainly pretty frequent the fence isn't precisely on the property, simply for the fact that it's difficult to construct it that way. So, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the fence constructed by Hightower was a few inches off of the property line. It think it's a pretty typical situation. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, he was talking -- the gentleman mentioned an easement -- storm drainage easement. Do you know anything on that? Was there an easement on that side of the property? Densmer: There were no easements on our property, other than Settlers Irrigation and the access and private road easements that were identified on the preliminary plat. Yearsley: Okay. And I'm assuming that on your plan that there is a ditch that you're having to tile and move through the property and you will maintain that ditch; correct? Densmer: Absolutely. We have already been working with Settlers Irrigation on the route of that relocation and the new easement that they would enjoy when we are done. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think the North Slough is what he's probably talking about. It does run up the property line and, then, turn. Densmer: Yes. Fitzgerald: So, you guys are going to take it -- what direction? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 11 of 48 Densmer: After it turns on the north side of town and enters the Bull Ranch property, we will be relocating it from that point. It kind of runs on a diagonal across the property and we are going to straighten out the diagonals to work better through the -- through the project. Fitzgerald: Okay. Densmer: But none of that would require off property work. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. You had one? Oliver: I just need to ask a question. Given the staff recommendations for conditions, if we -- if you had to meet those conditions how would that affect your development if you want to change it? Densmer: Certainly the conditions about including the e xisting in phase one from a planning standpoint. Building enough streets to provide access to the existing home in phase one and connecting all the utilities to the existing home in phase one really are impractical from the scale that this development is trying to respond to. There is certainly different -- just like every business -- development being a business -- there are different levels of developers in terms of the scale of a project that they are able to take on and I think that that's really good for the city to not only have developers that are capable of developing enormous projects and really large phases at a time. This project is a much more manageable size and it provides a different product type or a different segment of the market. In order to develop 50 lots in a single phase, which is, essentially, what the staff's conditions would require us to do in order to get the access and utilities and everything to the existing home, it would really make the project economically unfeasible for pretty much everyone one other that the most -- the highest -- kind of the highest producing developers in our community. How is that? Oliver: Yeah. Densmer: So, I think certainly with respect to staff, I think the conditions are well intentioned, but they would really probably push the project by ability beyond being accessible to kind of what we are trying to achieve here. Oliver: Thank you. Densmer: You're welcome. Yearsley: Anymore? Thank you. Densmer: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 12 of 48 Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on file number AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017? Fitzgerald: So moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Okay. Any comments? Thoughts? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, one of the things to Commissioner -- or Commissioner Oliver's comments is -- I will kind of point your guys' attention to the letter that we got from the ITD and nowhere it there does it say access needs to be taken away right now. It says they were very thankful that we try to take away access to 20-26 directly to this. I think -- and I tend to agree with the applicant, I think your -- there is some undue burden being asked to do -- to make some changes that -- you're not bringing the streets to them immediately. It's pretty difficult to run some -- I think the sewer is a great -- may compromise and I think I would ask for the fence on the west side as possibly a compromise or an offset to requiring that they vacate that street right now. I do know that where you're -- it's not very big, try to phase it out is important and so I -- I think that's -- my concern is we are putting undue burden on the applicant to do something that isn't necessary when they are trying to phase something out. Yearsley: Any other comments? Thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? I -- I would tend to agree on the burden with the applicant. I think with this size of a development I just -- I don't see where it's necessary without -- if that street is not going in, to close that off and, then, with regard to that fence on the west side, I could go either way. I mean you build a house and you put -- you kind of wait for your neighbor to build before you put the fence up, but -- I don't know that -- Yearsley: Thank you. Do you want me to go or you want to go first? Oliver: Go ahead. Yearsley: All right. I understand his comment of wanting to hook up near the well. I do believe that it can be done running just a little extra piece of water line up that existing road, put it next to the sewer. They could do a directional drill fairly inexpensively to -- to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 13 of 48 connect sewer to the house -- or water to the house. He's going to have to provide some turnaround anyway for those stub streets , so the fire access can get turned around, so he will have to extend the road out just a little bit for turnaround, so I could -- I could probably go either way on the access to Chinden. However, you know, the faster we can get access -- accesses cut off of Chinden the safer Chinden becomes. So, as a safety, you know, point, as those become advantageous to have that sooner rather th an later. So, I can go either way on that one. I think connecting to water and sewer is doable. As a -- I guess as a caveat I could almost recommend that the six foot privacy fence be installed at phase two as -- you know, and that way that other development may have come in at that time and they can share that expense at the same time or however that works, but -- you know. Because it really doesn't make sense to install a fence with nothing there, in my opinion. So, I still think, you know, connecting utilities to the house earlier rather than later, but I kind of go either way. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I agree with everything that's been said. I just -- mine's just a comment that the nice lady that's almost ready to head out, is the concern about the two story homes being connected to the back of your house. I wish there was a way that you could actually have some kind of magic wand that that wouldn't happen, but, unfortunately, there is no control of that. So, just kind of hope and pray that you get a single story and not a two story, because they could actually build one there without us doing anything about it anyway. Yearsley: Yeah. Thanks for commenting on that. I meant to do that and, unfortunately, we have no control, unless the applicant desires to not build two story homes along that. So -- so, with that if there are no more comments, I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, a clarification real quick. So, are we approving or making a decision or denying or whatever we are going to do, this based on the new ACHD roads that are being suggested to us? Yearsley: I guess that's -- I'm not quite sure how to handle that one. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, obviously, the applicant did present you their desire to move forward. I think my recommendation this evening is just have them provide us a revised plan ten days prior to the City Council hearing, so that we can at least reflect that change in front of them. I think it is a better design with -- with the choker system than with the traffic circle. So, certainly you can include that in your motion to remove the traffic circle and institute the choke as desired by ACHD and provide us that revised plan. Yearsley: Okay. So, this will be a fun little motion. Fitzgerald: Rhonda's working on it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 14 of 48 McCarvel: You guys always stick me with the hard ones. All right. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5, 2015, with the following modifications: Item 1.1.1A to be the applicant's recommendation for vacating the existing access to North Chinden Boulevard. 1.1 -- Yearsley: Just for clarification. Are we removing that condition or are we going to keep that condition? McCarvel: Remove that condition. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: 1.1.1C to keep that condition. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: 1.1.2C -- okay. So, that -- we don't -- the staff's recommendation. Yeah. Okay. 1.1.2D to remove -- let's see. To remove that condition. Is that where we were at on that one? Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. And 1.1.3C, that the fence shall installed in the second -- on the west boundary shall be installed in the second phase. Yearsley: I think we need to amend 1.1.2D. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Because that's talking about eliminating -- vacating that access. I think he's got comment in there that that's what the -- probably the wording should say. Fitzgerald: What ITD -- Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. And, then, to remove -- to provide a new plat on the choker ten days prior -- to the staff prior -- ten days prior to City Council meeting. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 15 of 48 McCarvel: Does that cover everything? Yearsley: Are you guys good with that? Densmer: I'm sorry, I know I'm totally out of order, but a point of clarification. I believe I heard you say that you would like to retain condition 1.1.2C? Yearsley: That's actually in keeping the existing house in the -- phase one; correct? Densmer: Right. Which I don't think would be consistent with -- Yearsley: Well, for hooking up the utilities it would be probably part of phase one. Densmer: We would prefer not to plat it as part of phase one, even if it were to be connected to utilities in phase one. And there is a problem involved with a gap in the phasing. The existing home would not otherwise be contiguous to the phase one lots. We can connect it to the utilities. We prefer not to plat it until we get to that phase. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: We can amend it to remove that condition. McCarvel: Okay. Densmer: Thank you. Yearsley: Is that okay for you? McCarvel: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: That concludes that motion. Yearsley: All right. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 15-013 and PP 15- 017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good job, by the way. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 16 of 48 C. Public Hearing Continued from October 15, 2015: PP 15-018 Sundial Circle Subdivision by Conger Management Group Located 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the list is the -- we are going to open the public hearing -- the continued public hearing from October 15th, 2015, of PP 15-018. All right. We will open that one. And let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is the Sundial Circle Subdivision. Just a little bit of history -- the location here. As you can see on your aerial shot there this was an existing part of the Sundial Subdivision No. 1 and there has been a cell tower on the property for the last 20 years. That has now been removed from the site, leaving the property open for a subdivision. So, that's where we are today. There is kind of a little history there as far as where the property has come and how it's gotte n to where it is today. I won't go through all that with you. This is an existing -- like I said, it's an existing part of the Sundial Subdivision No. 1 that's going to resubdivide. There are going to be 11 building -- single family home lots and one common lot on a little over two and a half acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Because the size is under five acres for a subdivision we do not require any open space, although the applicant has proposed to -- as you can see on the map here connect -- there is an existing micropath there to the current Sundial Subdivision No. 1 that will be continued as part of this subdivision, so they have included that in their -- in their proposal. The access is fairly simple, it's going to -- the access is on Whitelaw Drive here. This is just kind of a landscape for Sundial Subdivision, showing the path that will be continued down into the -- the proposed subdivision. Here is some aerials that were given to staff in the application. Staff is in favor of the application. One thing to note is we are requiring the applicant to provide some additional landscape plans as -- prior to final plat. As you can see this is not the landscape plan from this specific subdivision, but it's from the Sundial Subdivision No. 1, so we are requiring that the applicant provide that. Staff is in favor of the -- of the application and the preliminary plat and I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Riley: Which microphone? This one? Yearsley: Either one. Riley: Penelope Riley. Riley Planning Services. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. I am here on behalf of the applicant. I would like to begin by saying that the applicant and the design team -- the planning team would like to thank staff for all of their assistance. As usual they were professional and insightful. The applicant has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Sundial Circle preliminary, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 17 of 48 which will become part of Sundial Subdivision No. 3 in final platting, completes the Sundial development. As provided in the application packet, a conceptual plan for this area was submitted previously to the City of Meridian. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the originally proposed development for this parcel. The proposed subdivision, as you know, is 11 residential lots and one common lot. As detailed in the revised project narrative, the overall density for Sundial development will be 3.69 units per acre. This is consistent with the R-4 zoning designation. A neighborhood meeting was held on site on August 17th, which was my birthday, so it was kind of fun, I had two celebrations at one time. And the Sundial neighbors indicated very strongly that they would like this subdivision to be a part of their homeowners association. The applicant concurs with that. The lots in Sundial Circle will be consistent with the neighborhood and will conform with the underlying development agreement. Josh mentioned that earlier. The Sundial -- excuse me. These lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Some of them are over 9,000 square feet. The proposed residences will be attractive. They will compliment the existing residences abutting the site. Setbacks proposed with the subdivision will match the setbacks in the adjacent subdivision and conform with the City of Meridian's requirements for R-4. The pictures submitted with the application show homes with a varied roof and wall plains, with the use of windows and other exterior treatments to create residences that will compliment the area and will be consistent with what's there now. The Sundial Circle -- the empty lot will be eliminated. The new homeowners will be there to contribute to the homeowners association, as desired by the neighbors. They indicated at the neighborhood meeting that their HOA fees were burdensome, that additional homeowners would help alleviate that burden for them. Pressurized irrigation will extend into the site and be joined with the existing PI system. The roads will be constructed to ACHD standards and the cul-de-sac meets the fire departments standards. Now that the cell tower has been removed the best use for this parcel is as residential lots. These proposed lots meet or exceed all R-4 standards. We will replace the empty parcel homes that will contribute to the upkeep of the existing Sundial open spaces. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Riley: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I do have someone signed up. John Llewellyn. Again, please, state your name and address for the record. Llewellyn: Yeah. John Llewellyn. 2616 North Marburg Avenue. So, I live just to the east -- or, sorry, just to the west. My east boundary is going to back up to about three of those lots I think. I guess the biggest concern that I have with this new development is the builder who built my house was also the real estate agent that sold my house, who I believe is also the developer of the project. Sold us on the property saying there was going to be six houses in this lot and they were going to be bigger than the existing houses, which I know is just his word versus our word. Can't really do much about it. But my biggest concern is that they are going to build row houses -- two story row houses in this lot, because they are small -- like I said, I think my lot butts up to three of those new Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 18 of 48 lots. I have a third -- or just shy of a third of an acre. I believe it's .31 of an acre and, like I said, I just wish -- or hope, as she mentioned, that they are going to match the style of the homes that are there. There aren't any homes with bonus rooms, so they are all short, single level homes and I guess my concern is that they are single level homes without bonus rooms, that they do truly match what's there. And that's the only thing I have today. Yearsley: Thank you. Llewellyn: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up to testify for this application. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come forward and respond to his comments? Riley: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. The applicant appreciates the fact that developing this parcel will represent a change and -- and like you discussed earlier in the previous hearing, it's not really the place of the City of Meridian in most circumstances to regulate what houses are built. I think in the end it's going to be a very positive developing subdivision. There is an empty parcel now that's blocked for access, except where the dead ends are and so instead of having an empty spot that has only the potential for problems, they will have homes. I don't know what else to say. Yearsley: Thank you. Riley: You bet. Parsons: Mr. Chairman -- Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: -- Members of the Commission, one thing for the neighbors and for the Commission to keep in mind, that this property is annexed -- zoned R-4. At the time that this property annexed into the city there was a requirement for a development agreement and this property is subject to that development agreement just like many of these homeowners are today and in that development agreement the minimum house size required on that property is 1,400 square feet and that is what is required in our current R-4 standards in our code today as well. So, no home will be under 1,400 square feet on that property, which is probably consistent with the surrounding homes. Then if a two story home is proposed for any of those lots the minimum home size would be 1,600 square feet. So, 800 per story. And that is, again, consistent with what has happened in the past and what's currently in our existing code today. So, I just want to at least go on the record and let the neighbors know that's the minimum home size that they will see on that property. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close public hearing on PP 15-018. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 19 of 48 McCarvel: So moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think for -- and I know this property pretty well. I think they have done a good job with what they have. It's an enclave there that needs to be done something with and I think it's a -- they have got a nice connection to the micropath system that's already there. I think the gentleman that spoke -- his house goes back up to a few of the lots. The lots are the same -- similar size to his in regards to size, so I think the concerns are alleviated there. I think it's a good project. I think it will be a good closer of the subdivision. Yearsley: Thank you. I have a tendency to agree. Looking at the lot sizes they are between eight to nine thousand. I know a third of an acre is 13,000, so it's not quite as big as yours, but for an R-4 zoning that's an -- 8,000 to 9,000 square foot lots are pretty good size. And I think, you know, he's -- the developer has provided kind of a style and look of the homes, which are tied to this development as well. So, I think it will look pretty nice and I think it's a good in-fill project. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I agree as well. I think that removing the cell tower is one of the best things they could have done to that area, because now it allows you to build some nice beautiful homes in there and I think elevations are great. So, I think it will be, again, a nice addition to that subdivision. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think it will be a nice fill in of the space and, you know, continuation with the HOA to have additional revenue and have lawn instead of weeds. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 20 of 48 Yearsley: All right. With that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 15-018 as presented by the staff report for the hearing date of November 5th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number P P 15-018. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-012 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2700 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C-G Zoning District E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-019 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the public hearing is public hearing AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019, Village Apartments and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you tonight are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. The overall site consists of 16.62 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-G and RUT in Ada County and is located at 2600 and 2700 North Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are various retail, restaurant, and commercial uses and land approved for a multi-family residential development, Verraso, so zoned C-G. To the south is Great Wall Restaurant, zoned C-G and land approval for multi-family residential apartments in Regency At River Valley phase two, zoned R -40. To the east are rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County, and to the west is North Eagle Road and undeveloped property zone d C-G and single family residential property zoned R-2. A little history on this site. The majority of this site -- the red area here, 16.44 acres of land, was annexed in 2003 with a development agreement as a pathway of annexation for Red Feather Estates Subdivision to the east. This site has remained a residential agricultural property since that time. The existing development agreement requires any future uses of the property to be approved through the conditional use process and for a backage street to be provided parallel with Eagle Road. A conceptual master plan is required that demonstrates interconnectivity, transitional uses and access points. The Comprehensive Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 21 of 48 Plan designation for this property is mixed use residential. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of .38 of an acre of land. That does include land that's part of the right of way to the section line of Eagle Road with a C-G zoning district consistent with the future land use map designation of the mixed use regional for this property. If you will note the zoning map here on the left -- just that little area there is what we are annexing. A conceptual site plan was submitted as shown that shows this portion of the overall site developing with a retail commercial building pad and this is right here, the annexation area. So, the applicant is requesting this site be included in the existing development agreement for the larger portion of the site. However, because the current development agreement also includes the property to the south where the Great Wall Restaurant is located, staff does recommend a new development agreement is required for the subject property to include the surrounding lands as included in the conditional use request and that is the remainder of the site here shown on the site plan. A conditional use permit is requested for the development of retail, commercial, and multi-family residential development on the subject 16.62 acres property in the C-G district as required by the current development agreement and the Unified Development Code for multi-family residential development in the C-G district. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted as shown that depicts three retail commercial building pads consisting of 3,500, 4,000 and 7,000 square feet along the frontage of North Eagle Road and one 14,000 square foot retail building east of the building pad, on a total 5.23 acres of land. The commercial portion of the site is not proposed to develop at this time. The multi-family residential development is proposed to consist of a total of 336 dwelling units, that's 136 one bedroom units and 200 two bedroom units, within 11 four story structures. Ten of those 32 plexes and one of those being a 16 plex on 11.39 acres of land on the eastern portion of the site fronting on Records Avenue. Associated garage and carport structures and two 18 bay storage unit structures are also proposed. The garage structures are shown here around the perimeter. The storage unit structures are right here where the arrow is. Parking appears to comply with UDC standards for multi-family development and for the clubhouse building. A minimum of 1.92 acres of qualified open space and site amenities proportionate with the number of units in the development is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards. This is a copy of the landscape plan they have submitted and this is a copy of the detail showing the open space calculation. The applicant submitted a revised plan with details of the qualified open space, but there are areas counted towards open space that staff doesn't agree meet the qualifications for open space per the UDC. The UDC minimum standard in multi-family development for common area is at least a minimum of a 20 by 20 -- 400 square foot area. Staff has discussed this with the applicant prior to the hearing tonight and we do plan to meet, discuss further what qualifies and what doesn't qualify. Changes may be required accordingly to the plan. The propose amenities include a clubhouse with an exercise room and enclosed bike storage. The bike storage will hold approximately 60 bicycles. There will be a bicycle repair area, swimming pool and a tot lot with play equipment. Staff requests that the application provide two additional site amenities from the open space category and provide details of such prior to the hearing tonight. The application provided details on the additional amenities to consists two shade structures, one within the pool area and one by the playground and a 50 foot by 100 foot open grassy area north of the pool. That is this area right here. The pool is right here and there is a playground area Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 22 of 48 right here. Kind of difficult to see, but the center building here is a clubhouse. Only one public street access is proposed to the site via North Records Avenue and that is right here where my arrow is. Other accesses are proposed via cross-access driveways between adjacent properties with access via Eagle and Records. I will just go through that real quick here with you. There is a cross-access to the north. Norco lies right here and, then, there is an access via Eagle in approximately this location. They are required to provide cross-access to the property to the north here. This is where the Verraso multi- family project was recently approved and, then, we have a cross-access easement to the south to the Regency At River Valley property and that is it. They were not required to provide a connection to the Great Wall property, because at the time the Great Wall developed they did not require the South Slough to be tiled here and a bridge constructed. This site is required to grant cross-access easements to the properties to the north and south in these locations. A 35 foot wide street buffer landscape is required to be constructed along Eagle Road, an entryway corridor, and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along North Records Avenue, a collector street. Records is anticipated to be constructed by Center Cal, the developer of The Village at Meridian to the south in the near future. However, if this property develops first this developer will be required to extend the road. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway with pedestrian lighting is required to be constructed along Eagle Road within the street buffer and a five foot wide detached sidewalk is required along Records Avenue. Staff recommends these improvements are constructed with the first phase of development prior to the first certificate of occupancy being issued for the site. Because only the eastern portion of the site is proposed to develop at this time, the applicant requests the condition as modified to only require the pathway along Eagle Road and the pedestrian lighting at this time and allow the landscape to be proposed until the commercial portion of the site develops in the future. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the multi-family structures, clubhouse, garages, carports, storage buildings and garage maintenance building. The elevations you're looking at here are the four story multi-family structures. Perspective views. This is the proposed clubhouse. No building elevations were submitted for the future commercial building. Those will be permitted down the road when that portion develops. Building materials for the multi-family and clubhouse structures consist of fiber cement horizontal lap siding and stucco with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. All structures on the site are required to comply with the design standards in effect at the time of application for certificate of zoning compliance. A development agreement modification is also requested to remove the requirement for conditional use approval of all uses and to include a conceptual development plan for the site as required by the existing DA. This application only requires Council review and approval. That's just a little information for you on that. Written testimony has been received from the applicant Jim Conger. As I mentioned he's requesting deferral of the landscape buffer along Eagle Road. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application with a new development agreement per the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Any questions? I guess I have one question. If you're -- I guess in the conditions of approval it states that he will meet the open space requirements; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 23 of 48 Watters: That is correct, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Okay. So -- Watters: They are held to that condition no matter what. We are still determining what counts as open space and what's not, but I think we can come to an agreement with that working with the applicant. Yearsley: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger with DevCo at 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Thank you. And we are excited to be in front of you tonight to show you this project and walk through it for multi-family. Is that my proposal? I'd first like to thank Sonya and the rest of the city staff that helped us with our code experience and worked us through several of the elements of planning on this project and we are also very grateful for having the recommendation for approval. I'm going to skip my summary portions. Sonya did a wonderful job going through all the details of single bedrooms and two bedrooms and things of that nature. Our phase one tonight is in front of you, which is the multi-family. Our phase two will be coming in the future with the commercial, but it is part of the existing development agreement and, obviously, part of the annexation and part of the entire project. Our project is designed -- to ours -- help me out, Sonya. Which one -- why is it not going? There you go. Our site is, basically, ironically enough, on our side of Eagle corridor, almost an in-fill. It is one of the last major portions in that -- what we are calling the Eagle corridor. It's that new Meridian urban core with the Village Center and all the growth that we have to our south and, then, we have, of course, Rosauers Grocery, Lowe's, Dick's Sporting Goods and a tremendous amount of restaurants to our north. So, from a standpoint of planning and best uses of a property, best uses of the Comprehensive Plan, we couldn't ask for a better location that goes along with -- with our multi-family apartment project. Again, I just want to touch on our site plan and our architecture. Our site is -- you know, with the multi-family is off the Eagle Road frontage. We are similar to the -- our neighbor, which is the Regency apartments from the standpoint of buffers, you know, they had a very generous buffer of 120 feet from the back of curb to their apartment homes. We have that -- that same distance. They are slightly -- you know, they are about six feet longer, but, basically, the same as far as our buffers back from Records Street and kind of -- from that theme that is where we end. I think it's important and what we wanted to drive home for us today is our architectural design, we are going with that more modern look in this new urban area to differentiate ourselves from the other apartments. It's very important for us to not continue to produce the same apartment homes as you're seeing, otherwise, it doesn't serve the city much better, we will all be a commodity. Our modern incorporates clean lines, sleek details, warm elements, simple design, but they are very complex in that all these hidden functional details all matter, so as we work our way through our approvals with you tonight, City Council, and, then, through design review, I guess we are hopeful that -- that this architectural design holds as we work through the rest of your codes. Again, to give you some idea, we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 24 of 48 after -- our residential profile is a little more of a hip urban type individual. It's similar to the condo buyer, but without the attachment of a for sale product. I tell you all this just -- the approval is very important as the whole design theme element and how it lives, feels, and looks and ultimately the business model when it's done. Kind of moving on. Two items of I guess further discussion. One would be the open space. That did come up. We are confident, as Sonya had indicated, we do this every day, your staff does this every day, we just need to get on the same page with the calculations of the open space and we understand the code and are very comfortable with it and we have some areas that we can add if we -- if we do come -- come short. But we will sit down next week and resolve that, as Sonya indicated. The only issue we have with the staff report is -- as my letter indicated, was just the timing of the improvements of the buffers on Eagle Road. We are not opposed to the buffer, of course . It's a requirement. We just -- that is our phase two area. Our phase one area we will put that buffer in. We have tiling of the canal as you can see on this. We have gravity -- other gravity irrigation requirements. We have pressurized irrigation requirements. We have parking lot to put in. We have commercial buildings to construct. What we put in would be destroyed. We haven't set our elevations of the commercial buildings. It would be almost impossible without ruining at least half of whatever landscaping went in. We understand the buffer. We are putting in the buffer that we will actually buffer our first set of residential users. There is nobody to buffer yet on that -- on the phase two portion and that will have its -- its chance and it will have its own set of occupancy permits to tie to it. And I guess as I close out I would just give you this alternative condition for B1.1.5, which was we are fine with the 20 foot wide landscape buffer attached to the phase one occupancy permit, but we would appreciate and really need, because of the construction requirements up front, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road would be phase two occupancy permits. I think that's a -- a very easy item to modify in the conditions and it still complies with the UDC, because we have read the UDC inside and out and, yes, it's required by the UDC. The UDC is a little bit silent on when they have to be installed. In our opinion of why that's silent is it has to be installed when that phase is done. I can give you numerous examples. You could take Paramount Phase 28 just finally doing some improvements along Chinden. Paramount phase one did not do the Chinden improvements, because you couldn't afford to do your projects that way. We just finished the Three Corners project in your lovely city of Meridian at Chinden and Locust Grove and phase three put in the Chinden improvements, which phase one couldn't afford to do it, nor would we have had the proper civil engineering to put it in at the right elevations and the rest of that. So, we don't think we are asking for a variance. We don't think we are asking for anything. We think we are going to comply with the UDC. When that phase is built that buffer will be constructed. In closing we are excited to gain approval and get to the next step with this wonderful project and keep in mind the condition B-1-1-5 is really a must. With that I will stand for any questions or defer to the rest. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 25 of 48 Fitzgerald: In regard to -- this is a -- a rough property. That thing is an eye sore in general. Are you guys tearing everything out to start with or are you going to go down Records side? Build that road and, then, go in that direction? I mean that house and the -- all the cars and everything out there is pretty rough. So, I -- what's the plan in regards to making that look -- I know you don't want to build a buffer right now, but is there a plan to clean that up as you go or -- Conger: No. The -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, no, I think that's a wonderful question and should have said that up front. No, we will remove the house and clean up the site. We just don't want -- as far as permanent fixtures in that phase two area do not make sense. But, no, for our own apartment livers and the residents, we have got to clean up that front, so -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Watters: Chairman Yearsley? Yearsley: Yes. Watters: Excuse me. May I ask a question of the applicant real quick? Is that prior to the building permits? When are you committing to removing those buildings that are on the site and cleaning up the site? Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and Sonya, you know, first blush I'm saying that prior to an occupancy permit, but typically speaking we do our grading, clearing, and demolition in the up front stages, so I would assume -- now we haven't been able to test if we have asbestos in the house and we have to do some abatement and things of that nature. You know, I don't suspect it would take two months, but it could. So, our goal would be during the construction phase and certainly prior to residents moving in. Watters: Okay. If the Commission desires to make that a development agreement provision I would suggest a timing be put on that. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? So, I just want to make sure I understand, because Sonya had mentioned that you would agree to do the pathway and the lighting, but not -- didn't want to do the landscaping. What I'm hearing now is you don't want to do any of that until phase two; is that correct? Conger: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We had thought we could do some sidewalks and we are not trying to completely backpedal, there was just too many tiling and civil, you know, elements of this frontage that we could put a sidewalk in, but it's not going to connect to the Great Wall sidewalk until we do phase two and figure out all our elevations. There is just physically to many large -- not small, but large improvements that need to be done in the phase two area. So, that is different than what Sonya and I talked about and I do not like doing that, but that is the fact. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 26 of 48 Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: What's your estimate on the beginning of phase two? Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, phase two is currently with the commercial brokers going through. You know, we have five pads up front. There needs to be at least two, if not three of those somewhat committed before we can finalize that plan, so, you know, I just can't say it's exactly six months from now or if it's, you know, 14 months from now. I just don't have an answer for that, but in this market it will be sooner than -- than later. But, again, until we have exactly what use -- what size building, what elevations, and -- it's just not possible to do those heavy civil improvements out front. Watters: Chairman Yearsley? May I ask one additional question? I apologize. Is there still someone living in that house? Conger: Mr. Chairman. There is a landowner for sure living in that house. Or someone living in that house, yes. Watters: So, when I -- in the report I anticipated that all of these structures would be removed fairly soon with development. If that is not the case we do want to make sure that we include a provision for the existing home to hook up to city services if it's not going to be removed anytime soon. Conger: Mr. Chairman, if I may. No. I apologize. I misunderstood the question. There is someone in that house today, but before we start work we will procure the property and there will be nobody living in that house. Watters: Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Conger: No provision needed, though, for that. Watters: Just wanted to make sure. Okay. Conger: No. No, I did not see that. Yeah. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you very much. Conger: Thank you very much. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up for this. A Martin McWilliams. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 27 of 48 McWilliams: Martin McWilliams. 3624 Tahiti Drive. That will be on the corner of Records Way and Tahiti once Records Way goes through. I don't have a real concern about the development. My concern is about the additional traffic on Records Way. We have already approved 96 units for the Regency and now we are looking at approving another 338. All those -- all that traffic is going out onto Records Way. That's a concern. I think the property owners on the east are going to lose privacy and we are going to have noise. It would be nice if the developer would think about maybe putting up a -- erect a cement -- decorative cement wall in place of the vinyl wall that we currently have. And that's all. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Brenda Ross. Ross: I'm Brenda Ross. I live at 3720 East Tahiti Drive in Meridian and I guess my concern is -- and mainly the same one that you just heard. Records isn't a through street yet and when it is it will be only two lanes. As the gentleman prior to me was just saying, we just -- they just approved another three buildings with the Regency apartments. That already has 240 units, without the new buildings. Now we are talking another 336 and just north of this proposed property is a complex of four buildings that are supposed to be luxury condominiums. They sit right behind the Norco building. So, I don't know what you think will happen with all of that traffic feeding onto Records Drive. I can tell you right now that several people that live in the Regency apartments drive over the lawn in Kleiner Park to come through the Red Feather Subdivision to get out to either Ustick Road or Cloverdale, because they don't want to deal with the traffic on Eagle and so you can feed all of these people onto Records and I think it's going to be insane along there and I don't know what's going to happen in our subdivision with all those folks either, but I hope you will take that into consideration. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Dick Ross. D.Ross: I'm Dick Ross. 3720 East Tahiti. So, in the Red Feather Subdivision. Tahiti goes to what I call the green gate right now, which is tied up against the new apartments that was mentioned two hundred plus apartments on a busy thoroughfare from those apartments south toward Fairview. The speed that those people leave in the morning and return at night is just amazing right there along Kleiner Park. When these 336 new additional apartments are built, then, records is going to become quite a raceway. A question for Sonya. Could you show that elevation, please, that has the backs of tho se buildings? Yes. If I understand this -- these back areas that we see are what we are going to see along Records; is that correct? Watters: That is the end of the building and -- D.Ross: Yes. Watters: -- yes. So, that would be this -- it's right here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 28 of 48 D.Ross: Okay. And so when I come out of Tahiti Drive this is the kind of elevation that I'm going to see and the inter core ones are going to phase into the center core, into the pool and everything, the clubhouse inside. Right now we have a sidewalk on both sides of Records and I'm guessing that that will continue all the way through north to Ustick. I would also guess -- and there hasn't been any mention of this -- that Tahiti is going to be tied into Records. Yes? No? Watters: Is this the road right here, sir? D.Ross: It's right here. Watters: Yes. D.Ross: It's right there. Watters: Yeah. D.Ross: The first gentleman that spoke lives right there where that circle is. We live right there. Is that intersection going to be tied into Records with project? Watters: Yes, it will be. It stubs into Records -- where Records will go. D.Ross: Okay. So, seven years ago a gate was pulled off of one of the small streets going into Ustick and that became a main thoroughfare for people to come and go from Red Feather. That same sort of thing is going to happen once Tahiti is tied into Records. What they did on Duane Street off of Ustick was put in the stutter bumps. Can we assume you guys are going to put stutter bumps in for us on Tahiti so we can slow that 30 miles an hour traffic down to something reasonable? Yearsley: I would assume that that has to be done as part of ACHD's -- D.Ross: Okay. So, when do we approach ACHD for that sort of installation? Yearsley: My guess is they would have to determine traffic after it's built and if there is -- they do what they call a warrant to see if that's -- if there is an issue with that, then, they will issue a warrant. D.Ross: And that's what they did on Duane and I'm sure they will need to do that. Yearsley: Yes. They will follow that same procedure. D.Ross: Okay. I think you have answered all my questions. I agree with the other two folks that talked. This is a high, intense loading of Records Street and there should be some other accommodations back to Eagle Road to let those folks in the apartments leave, including the existing apartments, which do not have access to Eagle Road right now. Oh. And the grocery store is called Rosauers. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 29 of 48 Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Please come forward. Name and address for the record, please. Rogers: Yeah. My name is Mark Rogers. 2487 North Wallingford Avenue. This is in the Red Feather Subdivision. And I'd like to agree with my neighbors for the most part here. I think they had some great things to say. I think the way Tahiti connects into Records -- personally I would benefit -- I would benefit from that, but I do agree with the traffic concerns. I would like convenient access to Rosauers and Norco and so on, but I agree that we need some sort of stop signs or speed bumps there. Kind of be great if the residents of the new apartments had convenient access to Eagle, especially for left turns onto Eagle. Right now it would be fairly easy for them to go out turning right, but turning left would be difficult, they would want to take other routes. And that's really all I had to say. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Sorensen: Hi. I'm Ann Sorensen. I live at 2725 North Duane. So, we face -- we actually are on the east of this new development that's coming in, so thanks for the chance and it's interesting to listen to our neighbors from the west and their opinions on that. I guess, you know, our understanding was that Meridian's intent was to blend neighborhoods with similar properties and so here we are at two to five acres agricultural properties and now we are going to have this density of, oh, what are we going to have, 600 -- over 600 -- almost 700 apartment homes -- apartment-type homes right in our backyard. That doesn't seem to blend and some of those other inconsistencies and incompatibilities and the density per acreage, size of the homes, the living spaces, the size of the lot, even the height of the homes. Four levels. You know, there is a Great Wall restaurant down there. We are now going to have a great wall along the back of our perimeter and looking at the -- the look and architectural design of that confirms that. That is a great wall look. You know, it's not consistent with the type of -- a very cozy neighborhood that Meridian love of home and hearth -- that's a very modern look. As well the landscaping on that. Hard to tell. It sounds like Mr. Conger has chosen to reduce the buffer even between Records and what was done over on the Regency apartments as well. So, reducing that again -- let's see. You know, again, that Records Avenue -- there is no intent for there to be any access for anyone along Duane. So, it's like a separate little community apart from who is right now next to you. There doesn't seem to be any kind of friendly liaison or any kind of thing going on there. I'm probably, yeah, just seeing the architectural design today was really quite shocking as well. Kind of that second great wall. So, that's what stands out to me. But, anyway, I would appreciate you just remembering the intent of -- of Meridian and that desire to blend like neighborhoods and keep that -- that feeling of rural -- ruralness there. So, I appreciate that. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? At that point would the applicant like to come forward. Again, name and address for the record, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 30 of 48 Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview Avenue. A couple items to just quickly touch on -- as you know, just somewhat of a reminder. ACHD has looked at this and reviewed this project thoroughly and their staff report has recommended approval as well and that's in the packet. As far as adjacent neighbors, I would like to get to the -- am I in yours or mine? Sorry. Watters: Would you like to be in yours? Conger: I would love to be in mine. Than k you. That's perfect. Just quickly addressing a few of the concerns with Tahiti. I think everybody knows. I'm just giving a reminder. Our projects to the north. Tahiti is right here. This is an entire project. It was already previously approved by the City of Meridian. I believe it was last year. We have been through the application quite a bit. They are approximately setting their -- their apartments back 95 feet from the existing homes. They are set off of Records the 22 feet, just to give a perspective -- I will come back. We are 120 feet set off of Records with the project that was approved last year at 23 feet off of Records. Again with Tahiti right here. So, we have gone with our design elements of really what the Regency did off their main buffer to their south was getting that 120 foot off, buffering it nicely with the garages and some shorter architecture before we got to the apartment homes. So, we have really worked pretty hard to set our buildings back and I think the last item I will say is, you know, our -- our neighbors which are all in Ada County, they are not City of Meridian residents -- our homes -- there are approximately six hundred -- or our apartments homes are approximately 645 feet from their back living areas. Again, a far -- far cry difference is what's approved behind Red Feather and we -- we will be -- we are the transitional buffer from the busy Eagle Road, the heavier commercial and retail. Then you get into the multi- family and it will just go less and less as you guys already know, kind of the same MO for the neighbors. This is the perspective from our county neighbors backyards. We have put in approximately the same size tree, where they would be in their back area. If they have a pool or don't have a pool, that would be our facility in the background. They can actually see the sides of one of our buildings with the way the current vegetation is and if their current lifestyle doesn't with the county. If they redevelop, of course, they would have to come into the city and that would be a different process. I think in closing we definitely appreciate our time tonight. We appreciate the neighbors' concerns. We think they have been all addressed the best they can. May not be quite happy, but they do fall within ACHD and what Records Road, designed as a collector, was meant to be. So, I think in closing I would just remind you respectfully of B-1-1-5, if we could get that condition modified for our improvements. Thank you for your time and I do stand for any questions. Yearsley: Just one question and I -- just clarification. The 20 foot buffer along Records is not a reduced buffer, it's the required buffer for Records; is that correct? Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. We are not reducing any buffer on Eagle Road or Records. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 31 of 48 Conger: Thank you for that. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you. Conger: Thank you. Yearsley: With no other comments I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019. Fitzgerald: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: If you don't mind I would like to go first on this one. I guess for me I think the biggest issue that I look at is the -- the open space requirements. Trying to meet those -- that open space requirements and I guess, you know, for me I like the project. I actually like the architecture. I think it's different. It's unique. Kind of stands out. Given how tight the site is together and how it's all put together, I'm a little concerned about the open space and how we are going to fit that in. To the point that I'm not quite sure if I'm ready to send it onto City Council without verifying how that is going to look to meet the open space requirements. I guess the 35 foot landscape buffer along Eagle Road, I hate cutting off extending pathways, especially for pedestrians. Understanding Conger's conditions and concerns, I would actually, you know, consider removing that with the caveat that the other buildings in the front get cleaned up instead of the landscape buffer. So, I think that would be I guess, in my opinion, may be a fair tradeoff to make that look a little cleaner in this -- in the interim before they actually do phase two. But other than, I -- you know, your comment about the rural nature -- unfortunately that area is losing its rural nature and development is hitting hard and heavy along that corridor. This is the place for apartments, in my opinion. It is close to a city park. It's close to a lot of retail. It's close to food and stuff. So, it makes it the place where it needs to go and I like the layout, I like the look, but there are just a few concerns that I have, so -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- well, I think it's -- I think it's a great project. I think if you look at the layout overall I think it's very well thought out. I think it's very well laid out, so the people that are to the east aren't seeing a full side of the buildings. The architecture, in my opinion, is where we need to be heading. I think it looks great. I think it's modern. I think we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 32 of 48 very close to Kleiner Park. It's very close to retail. It's close to jobs. That's what we all talk about multi-use is we are close to jobs, close to multiple uses. I think -- I trust Sonya in this situation to -- there is a code for a reason that there has to be open space. I don't have a problem with that situation, which Mr. Conger is saying that they have room if they need additional. I'm happy to have -- let them compromise on what the best solution for that is. I know that the traffic concern is something that everybody brings to our attention and I appreciate those. We have to trust ACHD's recommendation to us that they can handle the traffic on that road and so that's our job is to say this is -- you did a traffic study and you did it, said it's okay and so in my opinion I think it's a great project. I think it's in the right -- right spot in the city. That is the new center of the -- of -- really in the valley. I mean that is becoming the center of the valley and so I think this is a perfect location, I think it's a great project, and so I think I'm in. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think you all are reading my notes. I do. I think it's the perfect spot for it based on all the things we have discussed in the past with the relationship to jobs and retail and restaurants and accessibility and I think during the presentation the first thing I noticed was the modern look of the apartments and how they stand out and be their own -- have their own identity and I think there is a lot of people who would appreciate how that that will look for that as a residence. I agree -- before I knew this project was even coming before us a few weeks ago I was going down Eagle and it just caught my eye and it's like what is that mess and so I think the removal of the house and cleaning up that front area immediately is a good compromise of, then, not having to have that landscape go in until phase two and, then, with -- I don’t know if you -- is there a specific date you were wanting on that, Sonya? Yearsley: I think it's just prior to the occupancy. McCarvel: Prior to occupancy. Okay. Yeah. I think -- I think it's a good project. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I agree. I -- looking at the development of the apartments to the south and, then, you look at the ones that are going into the north, it is a nice change. It looks different from the south. It looks different from the north. But it works with the plan. And I can't help but think that this is also something that our Mayor has talked about many times of having the ability to live and work, so you could walk to work and I think that works so perfectly with that area around there, that it would be a nice fit and I, too, agree that the traffic is going to be a lot higher, but according to ACHD it's not without -- there is no -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 33 of 48 seems to be no problem there. And, then, the other thing is the -- again, the time frame, that when you start development what's the time frame in which -- what is appropriate to have that area cleaned up. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, I guess also with phase two of this development these apartments will have access to Eagle Road through that cross-easement and I -- you know, the Tahiti Drive -- you very well may see additional traffic and I -- I wholeheartedly encourage you to bug ACHD for traffic calming measures to help alleviate any of that traffic that might come through your house. Unfortunately, that is -- that's not something that we have an opportunity to rule upon or to make recommendations to, so -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the neighbors could also take this matter up with our transportation commission and see what suggestions they would have for them. So, I would certainly keep an eye out on the city's website. They do meet once a month and they have an agenda and that is probably the most correct forum to proceed forward and present their case to the transportation commission and they may have some ideas to pass along and some suggestions to help the neighbors get some alleviation or some traffic calming in their neighborhood. Yearsley: Thank you. So, I guess with that I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval of file number AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5th with the following modifications: That we remove condition B-11 -- or 1.1.5 and that we add in that the structures currently existing on the property be removed before occupancy of phase one. Yearsley: Can I clarify that? Are we removing that or just saying that it should be included as part of phase two? Fitzgerald: Yeah, I guess that -- yeah. Included in phase -- part of phase two. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 15 -012 and CUP 15- 019 with modifications. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 34 of 48 Yearsley: I hope you guys for the last hearing entertain you for just -- I need to take about a five minute break if you guys don't mind. So, we will reconvene in about five minutes. (Recess: 7:47 p.m. to 7:51 p.m.) F. Public Hearing for Edgehill Subdivision (H-2015-0005) by JUB Engineers, Inc. Located at 1393 & 1405 W. Victory Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.19 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 116 Building Lots and 7 Common Lots on 40.19 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: So, we would like to reconvene the meeting. Thank you guys for waiting patiently for this last application. So, we would like to open the public hearing on H-2015- 0005, Edgehill Subdivision. And let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of approximately 40 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at the southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Victory Road at 1393 and 1405 West Victory Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Victory Road and residential properties in Model Farm Acres Subdivision, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east are residential properties in Kentucky Ridge Estates. Those are currently in the development process, zoned R-4. And a rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is a rural residential agricultural property zoned R-4 and to the west is South Linder Road and rural residential properties zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 40.19 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the low density residential designation for this site. The applicant plans to develop the site with 116 new single family residential detached homes. The preliminary plat as shown there on the left consists of 116 building lots and seven common lots on 40.19 acres of land and is proposed to develop in two phases as shown. The gross density for the development is 2.89 dwelling units per acre, with a net densi ty of 4.54 units per acre. The applicant submitted a revised plat today as shown that addresses the revisions required in condition number 1.1.2 in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff has reviewed the plan and it does comply with the UDC dimensional standards. The Williams gas pipeline crosses the southwest corner of this site and lies within a 74 foot wide easement and that is shown here. You can see my pointer here right across the corner. The Sundial Lateral bisects this site from east to west and that is in this location right here and is located within a common lot. The applicant plans to request a waiver from Council to allow the lateral to remain open and not be piped due to its large capacity. The facility to the east in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 35 of 48 Kentucky Ridge was also allowed to remain open. One access is proposed via West Victory Road and one access is proposed off of South Linder Road. Both arterial streets. Stub streets are proposed to the adjacent properties to the east and west for future extension and interconnectivity. Excuse me. Not east and west. East and south. A report from ACHD has not yet been received for this project as a CIS traffic impact study. Had a couple of errors in it that needed to be corrected before their staff report could be finalized and from what I understand from ACHD staff, it has not yet been resubmitted to them. However, ACHD staff did state that in general the -- the layout is acceptable and they don't anticipate any major issues. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Victory and Linder Roads. Landscaping is also required within common areas and along pathways in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and two site amenities are required to be provided within the development. A short segment of the city's multi-use pathway system within the Williams pipeline easement is proposed, along with a tot lot with play equipment. Staff also recommends an internal pathway as provided along the north side of the Sundial Lateral from the east boundary of the site to the northwest corner as shown on the revised plan. Conceptual building elevations were submitted that depict seven sample elevations of future homes within the development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical lap and shake siding with stone accents and asphalt shingles . Because homes on lots that back up to South Linder and West Victory Roads will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Six foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along the frontage of Victory and Linder Roads. The four foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along pathways and common area. Open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed along the lateral and a six foot tall cedar fence is proposed along the east and south boundaries. This parcel is not currently serviceable with domestic water. The development falls within pressure zone five in which there is currently no supply in the subject area. Sanitary sewer currently exists in South Linder Road to the north near West Kodiak Drive adjacent to and in Fall Creek Subdivision. Development of this property is dependent on the extension of existing sanitary sewer mains and water services being available from the city's pressure zone five. Written testimony has been received from Kristi Watkins, the applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement per the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. The staff recommends that condition 1.1.2 be deleted in its entirety and that the revised plat just be noted that it complies with current UDC standards. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: So, that was 1.1.2? Watters: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 36 of 48 Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, is that the requirement to have articulation, different colors, that will all be included in the development agreement as well? Watters: Yes, it is. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. That was -- I was just looking for it and I didn't see it. Watters: Well, I thought it was. Let me double check. If it's not in there it's in the conditions of approval of the plat. Fitzgerald: Oh, yes. I found it. Watters: Did you find it? Fitzgerald: Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Sorry, I'm -- McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Sonya, do you know when zone five is planned to be completed and they would get that water? Sonya: I do not know. McCarvel: Do you have any information on that, Bill? So, this just kind of an idea until all those connections happen? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's -- I know the city's -- the developer is going to donate a lot to the city. There is a leasing in progress -- in process to start construction and testing that well site, but it does take several years to get that in place through DEQ, from my understanding, so it will be a couple years at least. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Would the application like to come forward? Please state our name and address for the record. Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kristi Watkins. I'm with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood Avenue in Boise. I don't have a whole lot to add to that. That was incredibly thorough. Thank you, Sonya. Like she said, we agree with the -- all conditions that were presented in the staff report. The plat that you're seeing in front of you reflects many of those changes. We have done it kind of fast and furiously Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 37 of 48 over the last couple days, so I, myself, have not had a chance to QC that, but according to the designer he went through the staff report fairly extensively and covered and matched the issues. Two of the issues that we heard at the neighborhood meeting -- one was this -- I believe it's Jump Street here at the northeast corner. The adjacent property owner is planning to develop property next to that, so he asked that we align the street with his proposed street. We have done that. The other issue that we heard at the neighborhood meeting, which is a common theme tonight, traffic. So, unfortunately, because of the issues with the traffic impact study, which actually revolve around crash statistics -- and there aren't many at that intersection, so that's why they weren't included. The engineers are working on the traffic study, trying to find that information currently to that over to ACHD and, then, they will do their review. So, that's kind of the only thing that we are really waiting on, the improvements that are proposed meet ACHD requirements. They plan to widen Linden -- or sorry. Linder. I'm in Caldwell. I go on Linden. They plan to widen Linder and Victory both to the extent required by ACHD and put in curb, gutter, sidewalk and all the improvements that would be needed there. So, other than that do you have any questions for me? Yearsley: Any question? Thank you. Watkins: Thank you. Yearsley: I do have a few people signed up. Linda Coffield. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Coffield: My name is Linda Coffield and I live at 3111 South Cobble Way. Okay, I'm opposed to this subdivision. I moved out in that area 28 years ago and moved there purposely because it was a low density area. To the south of this proposed subdivision to the west, to the north is all surrounded by acreage anywhere from one to five, ten, 20 on up all the way to the Nampa boundaries. If they don't have water and they plan on drilling a well, then, I wonder what would happen to my well with that low of density? I don't believe that it belongs there and recently two other subdivisions -- one down on Stoddard, one in the Kentucky Ridge area to the east of this new proposed property subdivision are putting in hundreds of homes between these two. So, the people coming out of this new proposed subdivision would have to come down Linder -- wouldn't go down Linder, they would come down Victory or Stoddard to get to Meridian Road. Those are the two roads out. And so what I'm seeing now on Stoddard -- when you put in the pot the new middle school that's going to open here in September on Stoddard with people having to come down Victory -- employees, buses, children being driven to school and, then, you add the proposed 116 homes with the possibility of them averaging two cars per home, that's another 232 cars coming down Victory Road. At times of the day, because my property enters and exits off of Victory just a very short distance from this new property, I can't get out of my property at peak times, because they use Victory Road and Franklin Road when the freeway is blocked, people come down those two roads to get to west Treasure Valley and so that area now, because of the recently approved subdivisions and now this one, you cannot -- Victory Road, even if you widen it a little bit and put a turn lane in, is not going to handle all this traffic and I frankly don't understand Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 38 of 48 so I guess I need to call them, but I just think the impact is going to be too great for all of us that are the rural people there. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Paul Young. Young: Yeah. I'm Paul Young. 2915 Model Farm Drive and my understanding -- nothing has been brought up or anything, but my understanding on the corner of Linder and Victor there is going to be a roundabout, but I can't get any information on basically the time of it or anything else, but, like the lady just before me said, that area is going to be extremely busy. I can't -- I live on Model Farm and right now it takes me five minutes to get off Model Farm onto Victory and with a new subdivision we are about ready to start having people in it, we are overdeveloping, I mean Victory -- Victory is going to go nuts and I just wonder is there any truth to the saying there is a roundabout going in on Linder and Victory or -- Yearsley: Well, from what I understand they have got a proposed -- I don't know if it's actually scheduled in their five year work plan at this point in time, so I don't quite know when that is to be constructed, to be honest with you. Do you know, Sonya? Watters: Chairman, it is shown on their master street map. When or if that will be constructed, though, I don't know. ACHD should include analysis of that in their report when it's issued. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, if I -- I was out there and we were trying to put some pipe in and part of our stuff has to go through ACHD and we can't do it, because it is in their five year plan at Ten Mile and Amity to have a roundabout there within the next five years. So, I would imagine Victory and Linder would be within -- before that one. Young: Well, that's -- that was one of my concerns and the -- the ditch water there, my understanding at one time they were talking about having that canal fenced and, then, I was told they was going to bury it with pipe and you guys are saying that they can't bury pipe in there, so what -- because we get our irrigation water right at the end of it and about half the time we can't get water now. So, if you put a bunch more people around, what's going to happy to our irrigation water for Model Farm Subdivision? Yearsley: Okay. And we will have the applicant respond to that question -- or the -- yeah. That question on the canal. Young: All right. But I think that's -- those are my questions. Yearsley: Thank you. I have Ron and Susan Thompson. You're both welcome to come up, whichever one of you want to come first. And, again, name and address for the record, please. Thompson: Susan Thompson and I live at -- what? 1300 West Victory Road. We just moved there, so -- anyway. So -- I need my glasses. So, our house is directly across Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 39 of 48 Victory -- Directly north across Victory from the proposed entrance into the new subdivision. Yes. That's exactly where my house is. And we are on an acre and I don't know how wide the property is, but probably at least as wide as an entrance road across street. We have a horseshoe-shaped drivewa y and our -- we go down a little ways into the house, but all the houses on that side of the road are in an elevation where coming off of Victory they are a little lower, so -- so, my concern would be there is a 45 mile an hour speed limit right there right now. It doesn't change to 35 until it gets past our house east -- closer to Stoddard it changes to a 35 mile an hour speed limit, but it's 45 from Linder and so if there is nothing changing the road before all that traffic is going to be moving in through there, someone slowing down to turn into that subdivision either direction -- wouldn't matter which way they were coming from, if there was snow on the road or ice on the road they could feasibly end up in my living room because of the elevation of the -- of our property going down. So, someone, if they were to start to slide or something it would be easy for them to slide there. So, I would just wonder if there would be any -- any consideration for putting something up or creating some sort of traffic situation where that wasn't possible for someone to slide into my living room. Also coming out of that subdivision would be my front door, my -- the entire front of my house, windows. There is a bedroom and an office and, then, the front doors is all glass. Anyway. So, at night in the dark that's all we are going to see is headlights coming directly into the front of our house as they are leaving. So, that's a little bit of a concern of mine. So, just -- there are two streets that that's going to be across from, but apparently those two streets don't work into the -- into the developer's plan, because, then, they could put a street across the street from a street, like -- but I guess the property across the street from Cobble isn't in this plan, because there is someone who lives there and the property right across the street from Model Farm also isn't in the plan. So, both of those properties are just jumped over or -- and/or around. So, obviously, it's really not an option at this point for the developer to put a street across from another street, instead of just across from my house. Anyway. So -- so, those are my concerns are the lights and the elevations, like I said, of our street -- of our property and most of the property on that side of the road you go down into it -- would be someone, you know, maybe have to -- if it was icy or -- and, then, the 45 mile an hour zone is more the possibility of someone slowing down and finding their way into my front yard., so -- and some of the houses sit a little closer even than ours does, or the slow down, but -- Yearsley: Your time is up. Can you -- Thompson: Oh, I think I'm done. I think. I don't know. Sorry. I'm not really a public speaker, but -- Yearsley: Thank you. Does Ron want to come up or -- R.Thompson: Ron Thompson. 1300 West Victory. Meridian. As my wife said, I'm concerned about the entrance being proposed across from our house. When initially -- from what I understand it was proposed to be across from Cobble and it got moved. Is there a reason -- I'm assuming it's because the property next to us that hasn't -- in this annexation hasn't been developed, but with the -- being across from our house we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 40 of 48 going to have a huge traffic issue right in front of our house and we believe that -- according to ACHD standards you have to have 500 feet between streets -- four to four fifty either direction. Is that a consideration that can be taken into to either move it from directly in front of our house to property lines one way or the other or move it back to where it originally was designed to be across from Cobble? Yearsley: Okay. And we can ask the applicant. R.Thompson: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come forward. Bird: Ed Bird. 1570 West Victory. We are just north of the northwest corner where the roundabout would be effected. My question is is this development going to drill a well for water or is Meridian going to supply the water? Yearsley: And I don't know if that's been determined yet or not. Bird: Well, my house was built like in the 1960s. It was a homestead house on the 40 acres and it has like a 35 foot well, four inch casing, and when Kentucky Ridge went in and had their own well, a lot of the people -- I'm a little higher, but a lot of people had to drill anew wells and I don't see why that would be our cost when it's new development and why wouldn't they go on city water and sewer? Yearsley: Well -- and I think for right now the city water -- they don't have water supply to feed that elevation and that's what they are looking to do. Typically the city wells go significantly deeper. I know in the range of five to six hundred feet, so they would actually not impact your aquifer. They would hit the lower aquifers. Bird: But in the impact zone out there to the south you have got like 160 acres proposed subdivision to tap into the new Kentucky Ridge and tap into this one. Yearsley: Yeah. Bird: So, why not solve all those problems to start with and get the city services out there now? Yearsley: And that -- I think that's what they are working on right now. Bird: Okay. Yearsley: With all those subdivisions they have got the same situation. Bird: Would you have the developer address that to -- to us? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 41 of 48 Yearsley: Okay. Bird: Thank you. Yearsley: Anybody else? Please come forward. Bennett: Terry Bennett. 3235 South Linder Avenue -- or Road. I'm right on the -- right on the corner where you're talking about a roundabout. My house is also damn close to that roundabout, so I'm really concerned about that. I don't think -- I don't think having a roundabout right in my front yard would be very good, so I'm wondering how you're going to -- Yearsley: Can you speak into the microphone? Bennett: I'm wondering how you're going to take that into consideration. I mean just proposing a roundabout when the houses are pretty close to that intersection. Yearsley: From my understanding in their master street map they have looked at roundabouts and roundabouts are the preferred alternative from my understanding. However, if circumstances make in infeasible for roundabouts to be there, they will look at a regular signalized intersection, so -- Bennett: And you were talking -- also you were talking about widening Linder. Where is the widening going to come from? Yearsley: The developer -- and I believe I will let her respond to that, too, but she said that they will widen Linder on their side of the street to meet their -- the master street map, if I remember right of what she said. Bennett: And I am really concerned about the traffic that will be on Linder. I mean there are accidents -- more than she said before. You know, there was one last week, you know, a fender bender. So, I mean people don't slow down very much going through there. So, if you -- all you have to do is sit out at night and listen to the cars going up and down through there, they -- once they take off I mean they are in 50 miles an hour before they get past two or three houses. I mean it's -- it's a little scary at times. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Bennett: Thank you. C.Bird: My name is Cindy Bird and I live at 1570 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. My concern is like our neighbors, the roundabout that's going to be coming in, because we have three homes there and we are going to lose property and not only that, but our other neighbor that talked about the car coming into her home, we have granddaughters that sleep in the front of the house and how can we trust that if our roundabout is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 42 of 48 come down into our yard and somebody was to lose control and, then, come straight into our home, because we are not that far back like Terry said. That's all I have. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. C.Bird: Thank you. Yearsley: Anybody else that would like to come forward? Please. Name and address for the record, please. Petty: My name is Kevin Petty and I live at 11 55 West Victory. She mentioned that there would be a wooden fence on the east side of the property, but when they developed it on the -- on the east side of my property -- I adjoin this property by 726. But they had a put a vinyl fence on the east side of my property and these are wanting to put a wooden fence on the west side, that is totally inappropriate. It doesn't fit with anything around there. Everything around there has to be vinyl fencing right now. Secondly, it's where the stub road comes through, I would like for them to go across the road like the y did on the other side when they put in the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision, a solid fence across the stub road, because I had actually have tractors and I don't want kids out there messing with my equipment, you know. This is what they did -- Conger did for me on the side of the road and I'm requesting that the developer would do the same -- likewise on the opposite side. Yearsley: Okay. Petty: And as far as the wells are around there, I have lived there for 25 years, they have been developing around there constantly, all these little things going on, and my well has dropped over 20 feet in 25 years. Some of that may have to do with the drought season, I understand that can contribute to part of it. Twenty feet is substantial. And the reason I know that is I just put a new well pump in my -- in my well casing maybe two months ago and so that's an issue that should be addressed. Yearsley: Okay. Petty: And I guess that pretty much gets it and I thank you very much. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Bullock: I'm Chad Bullock at 1270 West Victory. Am I wrong, is this still just staged? Could we reduce the number of houses going in this subdivision to help reduce our traffic, our water, and if they don't have city water it's going to affect all of us, because I'm on a well. Can she reduce the size of homes, like cut it in half, you know, so we don't have such a large density homes right there. That's a lot of homes when you look back at -- look at the traffic, look at the impact you're going to put on Victory and Linder, Stoddard. The exit and entry points, I don't know quite where Linder is coming out at, but it looks to be around Steve and Wendy's house that's on Linder. Not positive. But I do not like Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 43 of 48 where the exit is on Victory at all, the entry and exit points. Can we address that, move it somewhere else? Yearsley: I will have -- I will have the applicant address that. Bullock: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward. Watkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try to kind of tick through these issues as they were mentioned. If we look in the staff report at Item 2.1.2, it says this parcel is currently not serviceable with domestic water. The development falls in pressure zone five in which there is currently no supply in the area. Zone five water will be available to the parcel with the construction of both a city water line project and the construction of future phases of the Biltmore Subdivision, including off-site improvements. The city project is projected to be constructed in 2016. Biltmore improvements are dependent upon the developer's schedule. This project would also fall in line with that 2016 schedule, so I imagine that everything would kind of happen all at the same time. So, city water, by the time this is ready to be built, will probably be in process. So, hopefully that answers that question. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: I was texting our engineer trying to find out the answer to the question, the access point off of Victory. He said that the drive -- or the road that's there currently does not meet their current standard for distancing from the majoring intersection, but if ACHD is willing to approve it, we are willing to move it. So, that's just maybe a negotiation that we need to have with them and we might find that out when the traffic study comes out, too. That's certainly something that we can discuss. And fencing materials can be negotiated. I don't think our client is opposed to doing vinyl fencing, so that can certainly be proposed to them. Yearsley: Can I ask why they were proposing vinyl on all of the other sides, except for that side? Watkins: I have no idea. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: I would have to ask them. Yearsley: Okay. Regarding the ditch, you're not doing anything to the ditch, you're just going to try to leave it the way your -- the way it is right now? Watkins: Uh-huh. They just want to do the one crossing, so they will pipe it just in that area and just do the one crossing. They want to keep the natural features as natural as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 44 of 48 possible. You know, there will be the regular access easements there for the -- the ditch company -- well, the Boise Project Board of Control I believe is in charge of that ditch. And they have got some requirements in their letter that they sent to us, so we will comply with that. You know, we are trying -- with the wrought iron fencing that will be along that ditch we are trying to keep it as open and natural as possible. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, turning movements. Are turning bays anticipated or are turn bays at the entrances to these subdivisions or do you know? Watkins: We are only required to improve our half of the road -- Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: -- on both of those main roads there and as far as I know our improvements do not include turn lanes. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: And I think that is because -- from what I understand the roundabout is actually part of the CIP, their capital improvement plan, is not part of their five year work plan, but as capacity grows in that area they will probably move that up the ladder, but I don't know that for sure and I couldn't put a date on it. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: But it is projected, it just -- you know, those things oftentimes take lots of public input, lots of opportunity for the neighbors to again go to ACHD and discuss the other options that might be available to them. Yearsley: Okay. So, you talked about trying to make -- move the entrance with ACHD's approval. Roadway construction. So, you will improve Victory and Linder on your side of the street; correct? Watkins: Uh-huh. Yearsley: Okay. The one question the gentleman asked, why so dense. I just want to have -- Watkins: It meets code. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: The lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet per lot to 10,000 square feet per lot. So, they are not small by any stretch of the imagination. It still meets the low density option in city code, so, you know, developers will develop. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 45 of 48 Yearsley: Okay. I just want to make sure we answer the questions. I appreciate that. That was my questions answered. Is there any other questions you guys have? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Just in regard to what you said, I will ask you again, but on Victory with the turn lanes going into the subdivision, you said you're not required to do that. If you were to put one in would you lose some of those lots, like two and three, maybe six -- Watkins: Possibly. And I don't know that they are necessarily opposed to those kind of improvements. If the ACHD staff report comes back and says that these improvements will be required based on the traffic study, then, they will do that. We already have reconfigured it once this week based on the block length and we thought we might lose some lots that way. We didn't. You know, we will do what's required and if that means that some of the lots go away, then, so be it. Oliver: Thank you. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: One of the gentlemen asked regards to on Jump Street when that stubs over, would you put a solid fence, so that they -- there is no access to that field? Watkins: I don't see why that would be an issue. Fitzgerald: Okay. Watkins: I'm sure that they would agree to that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you. Watkins: Thank you. Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2015-0005? Oliver: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 46 of 48 Yearsley: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Part of my thought on this is do we move forward and approve this pending the traffic study or should we just continue it until that traffic study comes back? It sounds like there is a lot of things hinging on that. Yearsley: I -- Fitzgerald: I'm kind of there, too. Yearsley: I was kind of leaning the same way. Fitzgerald: I think we are -- I know we were -- there is some concern on density and those kind of things. I think it's well laid out, but as the applicant said, if there is some discussions to be had, maybe we are not finalized and ready to go yet. Yearsley: You know -- and I agree. I think that we may want to consider that. For you individuals out here, unfortunately, growth is catching up to the rural, as I said earlier. It's happening throughout the valley. It's coming and it's unfortunate, you know, that we are losing a lot of the rural farmland. Growing up we had acreage and kind of experienced the same thing. So, it happens. It's something that as a city you want to grow. The best way to do it try to manage the growth. I think the subdivision is well laid out. I like the density. You know, it looks good. Size wise I think it will be a good subdivision. But I do think we want to get a little bit more information on the traffic study and maybe potential on the water system on how that’s going to work. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, one more quick thing. Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: And for the neighbors that are out there that are talking about the roundabouts and we are going to widen the roads, go talk to ACHD, because they need to hear from you. They need to hear that you're concerned about losing your property or how they are going to widen the road. That is not in our purview, so I would -- I would highly recommend you go see them and talk to them about that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2015 Page 47 of 48 Yearsley: Yes. And that is not into our purview, so -- so, any other comments? With that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Well, I guess the one question would be -- so, are -- I guess are we leaning towards continuing? McCarvel: Yes. Yearsley: I guess the question that we have is when do we continue it to? When do we expect the traffic report back? Watters: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure on the date that traffic impact study is going to come back, nor am I sure, you know, based on that when the ACHD report will be out. The soonest available date that it could go before the Commission again would be December 3rd. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: After that I believe it's the 17th of December. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: So, Mr. Chair -- and I'm assuming that this really isn't moving too far forward until water gets out there. We are not in a time is of the essence crunch here right now, so December 3rd -- Fitzgerald: December 17th. McCarvel: -- or somewhere would be okay. All right. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2015-0005 to the hearing date pending the traffic study from ACHD -- because we don't have it to consider at this point. Yearsley: To? Did you say the date? Fitzgerald: The 17th. McCarvel: I just said pending -- Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g No v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 5 No v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 5 No v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 5 No v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 5 It e m s # 4 A & B : B u l l R a n c h S u b d i v i s i o n - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Bu l l R a n c h S u b . - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Bu l l R a n c h S u b . – L a n d s c a p e P l a n Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m s # 4 C : S u n d i a l S u b d i v i s i o n - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Su n d i a l C i r c l e S u b . - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Su n d i a l C i r c l e S u b . – L a n d s c a p e P l a n Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m s # 4 D & E : V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M ap s An n e x a t i o n Ar e a CU P A r e a Ov e r a l l C o n c e p t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n Si t e P l a n fo r V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s La n d s c a p e P l a n fo r V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s f o r M u l t i - F a m i l y S t r u ct u r e s Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s f o r C l u b h o u s e It e m s # 4 F : E d g e h i l l S u b d i v i s i o n Zo n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Ed g e h i l l S u b d i v i s i o n - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t & P h a s i n g P l a n ( R E V I S E D ) La n d s c a p e P l a n Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Bu l l R a n c h S u b d i v i s i o n M E R I D I A N P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G C O M M I S S I O N N O V E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 5 Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 1 AC H D T r a f f i c C a l m i n g Bu l l R a n c h Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 2 AC H D T r a f f i c C a l m i n g Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 3 AC H D T r a f f i c C a l m i n g SU B M I T T E D T R A F F I C C I R C L E A C H D P R E F E R R E D C U R B “ B U M P O UTS” Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 4 AC H D T r a f f i c C a l m i n g AC H D P R E F E R R E D C U R B “ B U M P O U T S ” EF F E C T O N P R O J E C T C A L C U L A T I O N S Tr a f f i c C i r c l e B u m p O u t s Co m m o n A r e a (8 l o t s ) 1. 1 5 - a c 1 . 2 0 - a c Qu a l i f i e d O p e n S p a c e 1 . 0 2 - a c 1 . 0 6 - a c Op e n S p a c e % 1 0 . 2 % 1 0 . 5 % Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 5 Co n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l Ov e r a l l , t h e a p p l i c a n t i s s u p p o r t i v e o f S t a f f ’ s r e c om m e n d e d c o n d i t i o n s o f ap p r o v a l – w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . Th e s e i t e m s f a l l i n t o t w o c a t e g o r i e s : Ph a s i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t i n g h o m e Fe n c i n g a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h a d j a c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 6 Ex i s t i n g H o m e - A c c e s s Th e e x i s t i n g h o m e i s c u r r e n t l y a c c e s s e d v i a a pr i v a t e r o a d f r o m C h i n d e n . Re q u e s t t o m a i n t a i n t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y to s e r v e o n l y t h e e x i s t i n g h o m e u n t i l P h a s e Tw o . Ne w l o t s i n P h a s e O n e w i l l n o t h a v e a c c e s s t o Ch i n d e n v i a t h e p r i v a t e r o a d . Va c a t e t h e e x i s t i n g e a s e m e n t o n c e n e w in t e r n a l s t r e e t s i n P h a s e T w o c a n a c c e s s t h e ex i s t i n g h o m e . 1 2 Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 7 Ex i s t i n g H o m e - U t i l i t i e s Th e e x i s t i n g h o m e i s c u r r e n t l y c o n n e c t e d t o a we l l a n d s e p t i c s y s t e m . Ca n b e f e a s i b l y c o n n e c t e d t o s e w e r w i t h Ph a s e O n e b y e x t e n d i n g t h i s u t i l i t y b e y o n d t h e Ph a s e O n e l i m i t . Th e e x i s t i n g s e w e r i s a t t h e h o m e ’ s s o u t h e a s t . Ca n n o t f e a s i b l y b e c o n n e c t e d t o w a t e r w i t h Ph a s e O n e . Th e e x i s t i n g w a t e r c o n n e c t i o n s a r e n o r t h o f t h e ho m e . ? Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 8 Pe r i m e t e r F e n c i n g Pr o p o s e t o p r o v i d e p e r i m e t e r p r i v a c y f e n c e on n o r t h p r o j e c t b o u n d a r y . Ad j a c e n t t o e x i s t i n g d e v e l o p e d c h u r c h pr o p e r t y . Pr o p o s e t o n o t p r o v i d e f e n c e o n w e s t pr o j e c t b o u n d a r y . Op e n t o c o o r d i n a t i n g w i t h p o t e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t o f t h i s u n d e v e l o p e d p a r c e l . Bu l l R a n c h Ex i s t i n g C h u r c h U n d e v e l o p e d Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 9 Co n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l A P P L I C A N T ’ S R E Q U E S T E D C O N D I T I O N S O F A P P R O V A L Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 10 Th a n k y o u . Q U E S T I O N S ? Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 11 Pr i o r t o N e i g h b o r I n p u t Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 12 Al t e r n a t i v e C o n d i t i o n f o r B . 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Ea g l e R o a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 c e r t i f i c a t e of o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . Al t e r n a t i v e C o n d i t i o n f o r B . 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Ea g l e R o a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 c e r t i f i c a t e of o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . Al t e r n a t i v e C o n d i t i o n f o r B . 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Ea g l e R o a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 c e r t i f i c a t e of o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . Am e n i t i e s : * Co f f e e S h o p En v i r o n m e n t (L o u n g e C h a i r s , fi r e p l a c e , c o f f e e ta b l e s ) * Bu s i n e s s C e n t e r * Ev e n t s C e n t e r * Fi t n e s s F a c i l i t y * Bi l l i a r d s R o o m * Ma i l C e n t e r Fe a t u r e s : * Sw i m m i n g P o o l * Pl a y g r o u n d * La r g e O p e n G r a s s y A r e a * Co v e r e d P a t i o s * Tr e l l i s L o u n g i n g / S u n n i n g A r e a s * Bi k e R e p a i r S t a t i o n * Wi - F i * 19 4 T o t a l S p a c e s * 36 O n - S i t e S t o r a g e U n i t s * 12 7 G a r a g e s * 20 6 C a r p o r t s Al t e r n a t i v e C o n d i t i o n f o r B . 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Ea g l e R o a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 c e r t i f i c a t e of o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s .