The URL can be used to link to this page

2017 03-02 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance __X__ Treg Bernt ___X__ Steven Yearsley __O__ Gregory Wilson ___X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Jessica Perreault ___X__ Bill Cassanelli ___X__ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Verraso Village No. 3 (H-2017-0001) by Chad Olsen Located at 2975 and 3025 N. Records Avenue 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from January 19, 2017 for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129) by Shannon Robnett Located West of N. Meridian Road, Between W. Corporate Drive and W. Pennwood Street Approved with Modifications – Prepare Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 180 Multi- Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 7.52 Acres in an Existing C-G Zoning District B. Public Hearing for East Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2016- 0137) by DevCo, LLC Located North of E. Lake Hazel Road, West of S. Eagle Road Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council April 4, 2017 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.99 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 117 Building Lots and Fourteen (14) Common Lots on 40.99 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District C. Public Hearing for Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (H-2017- 0009) by West Ada School District Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for City Council April 4, 2017 1. Request: Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to Modify UDC 11-3D-8C to Allow an Increase in Background Area and Sign Height of Freestanding Signs for Multi-Family and Allowed Non- Residential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts Meeting Adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 2, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 2, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Jessica Perrealt and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: 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 on March 2nd, 2017. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Fitzgerald: So moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 57 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Verraso Village No. 3 (H-2017-0001) by Chad Olsen Located at 2975 and 3025 N. Records Avenue McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes for February 16, 2017, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval for Verraso Village No. 3. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, so moved. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff report will -- the staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. And you will notice with our new technology that the timer will run on the computer screen there at the podium. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from January 19, 2017 for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129) by Shannon Robnett Located West of N. Meridian Road, Between W. Corporate Drive and W. Pennwood Street Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 3 of 57 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 180 MultiFamily Dwelling Units on Approximately 7.52 Acres in an Existing C-G Zoning District McCarvel: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2016- 0129, Rainier Villas, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. So, this is an item that was heard originally at -- well, originally about a year ago, but they have since, again, changed their -- their conditional use permit. Back on January 19th we had a hearing for this project and the applicant was given direction to seek approval of a final plat modification from City Council prior to coming back on March 2nd, which is tonight. And in doing that they did apply for a final plat modification and -- move my slide here, so we can talk about it intelligently. I did leave all of the -- I did leave all of the slides in here. The important things that -- or conditions number nine and number 14, as you see in your -- your hand out there, they modified to read -- number nine to read as follows: That West Corporate Drive shall be constructed in its entirety with the second phase of development. However, with the construction of the first phase of the development the applicant shall provide an access to the signalized intersection of West Corporate Drive and Meridian Road, as proposed in -- in an exhibit in the staff report. The associated landscape buffer and five foot detached sidewalk shall be constructed with each subsequent phase. The applicant will also be required to construct a water main through the project to complete a loop from Pennwood through the east drive access connection to West Corporate Drive. So, essentially, Council allowed them to not build the Corporate Drive with their first phase, but they wanted to make sure that there was still utility connections and a way for those folks to get out from Pennwood out to Mer idian Road. So, that's the first one. The second one is there was concerns that we were -- the Commission, that we were going to allow the applicant to build some things on what we did not consider a legal parcel. Council did not have an issue with allowing them to obtain building permits prior to the certificates -- excuse me -- prior to the plat being recorded at the county, but no certificate of occupancy will be issued until -- until it records. So, those were the two things that you had questions about and now we have answers to. I can go through anything else that you would like as far as the conditional use permit, if you would like to rehash or review some of those items. Be happy to answer any questions you have. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. And would the applicant like to come forward? Anymore presentation? And as you approach the microphone, please, state your name and address for the record. Robnett: My name is Shannon Robnett. My address is 5103 Zamora in Meridian. I think Josh pretty much summed it up. We did have some questions, some things that were more of a question of procedure. It wasn't that anyone was trying to do one thing without the other, they were both required to be done, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 4 of 57 it was just the actual do we do this first and, then, this? Do we amend the plat and, then, this. So, I think we have got those answered and it's -- I think we have pretty much -- we have satisfied City Council with that. We have got the plat moving forward, we are just looking for the approval of the conditional use permit. So, I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Beach: Madam President, I will mention that we do have a couple of the conditions from the -- there is a lot of moving parts with this one. With the Commission -- or with the Council approval of those two modifications to the final plat, the staff report for the conditional use permit reflects -- does not reflect those changes. So, there is a couple of things -- a couple of conditions that we need to modify tonight to reflect what Council approved. McCarvel: So, in the motion we need to -- Beach: Yes. McCarvel: -- address these items. Beach: And I can tell you which ones those are if you will give me just a second. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Are you okay with the staff report, with the changes, the modification that Council has brought forward, everything is kosher? Robnett: Yeah. Unless they changed it since this afternoon. No, we are good. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you. Beach: So, Condition 1.1.3.H reads that this -- if this is a phased development West Corporate Drive shall be constructed with the first phase. So, we need to either strike that condition or just put in second phase . You got it? Yes. And, then, 1.1.8, which is a condition that reads: The final plat shall be recorded prior to applying for a building permit, which Council has allowed to happen. But no certificate of occupancy. And, then, 1.1.7 technically requires them to -- it says the applicant shall receive approval of the final plat modification. They have done that. So, that's not pertinent anymore. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Josh. And thank you. Robnett: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 5 of 57 McCarvel: And -- is there anyone here to testify on this issue? Okay. I'm assuming that the applicant does not want to come back forward . Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would move we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-2016-0129. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Any discussion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Well, I want to thank staff and the applicant. You guys have jumped through a ton of hoops and we appreciate all the effort you have made to do this. So, I think it's a good project. I like where it's located. I think we need this type of development and so I'm in favor and I think the changes that Council have directed us are good ones, so I'm in favor, Ma'am. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I actually like the new layout and the new plan. I know it's a few more homes, but I think the overall layout and the open space I think is a lot nicer, so I am in favor of it as well. McCarvel: I agree. Anyone else? Okay. Yeah. I agree. I think we stated this last time it is the perfect place for that kind of project and just needed to cross a few more T's and dot a few more I's before they -- before moving forward. So, got to get a motion if -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair. Oh. McCarvel: Do we have legal -- Bernt: I have nothing to add. I'm good. I concur with everything that has been said. Nothing. McCarvel: Commissioner -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 6 of 57 Cassanelli: And the same here. McCarvel: No. I was looking towards legal there. She looks like she had something. Pogue: I was just going to clarify that this is a motion for CUP; correct? So, this body is the final decision maker. Fitzgerald: It's approving -- right. Thank you. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: For a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and publ ic testimony, I move for approval of file number H -2016-0129 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May -- or, actually, but for -- staff report for March 2nd, 2017, with the following modifications: That we strike 1.1.7. We allow, per City Council's direction, we change 1.1.3.H to allow a phased completion of Corporate Drive and we change 1.1.8 to allow issuance of -- or final to be -- or finalized prior to occupancy or issue of occupancy. Does that give you guys direction? Beach: You're allowing building permits -- Fitzgerald: To be pulled -- Beach: -- prior to the final plat. Fitzgerald: Prior to recorded. Final plat, but before occupancy. Is that clear, everybody? Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H -2017-0129 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for East Ridge Estates Subdivision (H- 2016- 0137) by DevCo, LLC Located North of E. Lake Hazel Road, West of S. Eagle Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.99 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 7 of 57 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 117 Building Lots and Fourteen (14) Common Lots on 40.99 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District McCarvel: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2016- 0137, East Ridge Estates Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: This, as you said, is a -- the application for East Ridge Estates Subdivision. Their applications are annexation and zoning and for a preliminary plat. The subject property consists of 40.99 acres of land, which is currently zoned RUT. It's located north of East Lake Hazel Road, west of South Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are single-family residential properties in the Black Rock Subdivision, which is zoned R-4 and undeveloped residential property zoned RUT within Ada County. To the east is one single family residential property and undeveloped property, both zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south we have East Lake Hazel Road and undeveloped property zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west we have one single family residential property and undeveloped property, which are both, again, zoned RUT. This is an annexation, so there is no current history with the city on this property. The current -- the comprehensive future land use map designation for this piece splits both ways. Part of this property is zoned -- designated as low density and part of it is designated as medium density. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning, as I said, of approximately 40.99 acres of land shown on the preliminary plat. City is asking the applicant to enter into a development for this piece of property. The plat consists of 117 building lots and 14 common lots in a proposed R-8 zoning district. The property is proposed to develop in five phases. The gross density of the subdivision is 2.85 dwelling units per acre and lots range in size from approximately 6,600 square feet to over 12,500 square feet, with an average of 9,475 square feet. The plat is required to comply with the block length standards. Staff has reviewed those and they do -- we did -- were provided with a phasing plan as you see here. The first phase is approximately this area I'm outlining here. Second phase moves further down towards Lake Hazel. Third, fourth is here in the northwest corner and this would be their fifth in the northeast corner. Access is proposed for this site via one access from East Lake Hazel Road and be an extension of an existing stub street from the Black Rock Subdivision, which is East Cyanite Drive as I just see here on the -- on the plat. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an additional stub street to the west boundary to provide additional access to future development. Staff also recommends restricting development in the northeast corner and southeast corner of the property until adjacent properties are developed . An additional vehicular access is provided. The applicant is proposing seven common driveways in his project. All the common driveways should comply with the standards listed in the UDC. You can kind of see here these darkened areas here are their proposed common driveways. They do meet the length and we also have a code requirement that only -- up to six lots be given access from a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 8 of 57 common driveway and these all meet that standard, with the exception of -- we have concerns with the common driveway that the applicant is proposing here to take direct access to East Lake Hazel. So, we are recommending that the applicant reconfigure that southeast corner of the plat so those lots, Lots 43, 44 and 45 of Block 1, take access from East Cyanite Drive, which Cyanite Drive is this here, extends all the way down. So, staff's thought is they either connect to Cyanite Drive or they wait for the property to the east to redevelop until additional vehicle access is provided. Staff feels that the plat as proposed by the applicant should be improved in the following ways. Several I have already mentioned. Staff recommends that those -- as I said, those lots on the southeast corner be reconfigured. An additional stub street is provided to the west. I believe there will be some testimony from the applicant this evening to indicate that they -- they have and are willing to provide an additional stub street to the west here and, then, include a note on the final plat that restricts the development of Lots 46 to 52 of Block 1 until an adjacent parcel is developed providing access . Currently these lots here do not have access and so they are not developable currently, but they are waiting on access for an adjacent property to -- to be developed. So, the applicant, as I said, has provided a lot of landscaping on this property. A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along East Lake Hazel Road. It does meet the standards. The applicant has also provided approximately 8.41 acres or 20.52 percent of qualified open space, which consists of half the street buffer along East Lake Hazel Road, several micro paths throughout the property, internal common open space areas, including a nature path and an associated naturally vegetated area, which appear to apply -- to comply with the requirements of the UDC. Based on the area of the plat, as I said, which is approximately 40.99 acres, staff and the UDC require two what we call qualified site amenities to be provided. Go to the landscape plan. You can see here that the applicant has provided a trellised area with an overlook. There is some -- some significant slope in this area, so the -- the developer's idea was to provide an overlook area so that folks could sit here and congregate and look out this direction. They have also provided a covered picnic area out this way, as well as some multi-path -- some micro pathways that will permit asphalt and, then, this year will continue on with the -- with what they are calling a nature path or a couple of the wide pathways throughout this area, as well as a water feature. If you have driven past this you have seen there is a seasonal stream and the applicant has indicated that they were going to make some changes to that to improve it and make it meet our UDC standards for what we call a water amenity. So, lastly and not least, some questions on the utilities here. Sewer is available to this property under the temporary arrangement that was made for the Southern Highlands and White Bark Subdivisions. However, the Public Works Department states there is only sufficient capacity to construct an additional 16 homes on this temporary service until additional capacity is provided via the extension of the southwestern leg of the Ten Mile trunk sewer or if additional capacity identified in the upcoming new wastewater master planning effort scheduled to be completed later this year finds that there was additional capacity. Water is available from a stub street from the north, which is East Cyanite from Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 9 of 57 Black Rock, as I mentioned earlier, but Public Works requires a looped water system that would require the project to have access to water in East Lake Hazel Road. Water in East Lake Hazel Road will not be available to this property until March of 2018 at the earliest, which is a city project, unless the applicant constructs the necessary infrastructure themselves. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council review this project in the context of the availability of utilities to make a determination as to whether it is in the best interest of the city to annex this property at this time. So, the existing homes in the Black Rock Subdivision to the northwest of this site are located on a ridge approximately 20 to 40 feet above the proposed subdivision. The proposed home elevations will range from 18 to 25 feet below the first floor elevations of the adjacent Black Rock homes. Lots 11 through 19, which are these lots here, as indicated by my arrow, have a 40 foot wide slope easement along the rear of those lot lines. This area is proposed to be maintained by the individual homeowners and should be landscaped and maintained in a consistent manner. Staff has some concerns about how those homes will be sited on those lots, with the attached slope easement. We asked the applicant to provide an exhibit to show the cross-section of those lots and to demonstrate to us how homes will fit. The applicant -- we are also requiring the applicant to provide a master grading plan for the site with their first final plat application. The applicant did provide -- these are some more detailed landscape plans. You can kind of see they are going to have some parkway along their -- their entry road off of East Lake -- East Lake Hazel. Typically with development like this we have a condition in the staff report that the applicant provide a sidewalk, especially with the understanding that there will be a city park that will be starting to be under construction next year and we want some folks to be able to get to that park on a pathway or a sidewalk, so we have asked the applicant in a condition that they construct the landscape buffer and the sidewalk with -- with the second phase. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to -- well, I will let him make his proposal to you on that. With that, these are the elevations -- sample elevations or conceptual elevations that were provided by the applicants. You see fairly large homes. With that staff is recommending approval of this project , with the understanding that there are some -- some concerns and some -- some hoops that need to be jumped through and some challenges to overcome in order to get this project approved. So, with that I would stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. No? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. And as you approach the microphone, please, state your name and address for the record. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview Avenue. And I will let Josh key me up. So, thank you and we are excited to be in front of you this evening with the Eastridge presentation . With last year's annexation and the anticipated growth in south Meridian, this project is a great fit for what's -- the city's vision that's been going on in this south area of Meridian. We are also, as Josh indicated, we are going to be located directly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 10 of 57 across the street from the 77 acre regional park, which is also slated to start construction next year. As part of our excitement for this property is it's just extremely unique, as some of the things that Josh indicated earlier. From the first time we stepped on this property we just knew it needed to be land planned a little bit different than -- than a lot of typical 40-acre flat farmland pieces. This site topography has 64 feet of fall from the middle of the project to the boundaries. Not a lot of properties in Meridian have that much slope in them . It's also got a beautiful season creek and riparian area that's a haven for quail and other wildlife year round. We were lucky enough to be part of the Woodbridge development in Meridian years ago that did also work and strive hard to save a riparian area through the middle of it and that is what we have planned for -- and what's been the goal from day one of our planning process with this project . Our amenities are purposeful and they start out with eight of our 40 acres being open space. So, a little greater than 20 percent of the project, which is a sizeable amount. The vast amount of open space was all dictated and really driven by preserving and saving this riparian area. The riparian area will consist of enhancing the seasonal creek into a water amenity, as Josh indicated. It's going to have that natural walking path that's going to -- I will show you in a minute -- continue a full loop through our community. It will follow the creek and go down in that bottom gully and run basically full length and all the way through the project. It truly will be a unique walking experience on a daily basis . Our land planning process -- again, one more just of the riparian area in the middle that we will save and just at the very bottom of the 60 foot drop is what the second photo is. We were able with this process to incorporate a walking loop for our neighborhood. It's a little under a mile that will take the natural path and also through the community to be able to conclude that loop, which will be great for our homeowners. Another really unique process -- or part of this property is the astounding views that it has to Bogus and the foothills and, really, just the entire Meridian front there. We will be creating a social gathering spot, which is what you see here, located on a prime view lot in the -- in the middle of the project. So, what we are able to do is share that view and that experience with all of our homeowners that -- with the views and the -- and the homeowners that do not have the views. This is a well-designed usable space that will be elevated. It will have retaining walls. Kind of a bistro-type sitting area, gathering area. It will have turf areas, retaining walls and paver walking paths throughout. So, it will be a big emphasis in the center of the project. It really will be the gathering and the relaxation area, if you will. And if all that isn't enough, of course, our residents will be taking full advantage of the 77-acre city park that will be directly across the street with pickleball, tennis, basketball -- I mean you have probably seen the master plan, of course, as it came through. It's absolutely amazing. We did have a neighborhood meeting. We took three concerns from that meeting that we were able to adjust into our project and we -- obviously, we will hear from some neighbors. First we heard the neighbors want -- you know, we -- we tried to get with -- basically we only have three lots that abut the existing Black Rock Subdivision. We did our best ability to match them one for one, even though they were originally a county plat that, then, came into the City of Meridian. What -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 11 of 57 what we heard from the neighbors is they wanted our side yard setback on these to match their ten foot side yard setback. So, what we did is self-imposed in our application on Lots 27, 26 and Lot 1 -- any lot that abuts that boundary to have ten foot setbacks. So, that is written into the code. We were also requested that any fencing along that boundary be open wrought iron type fencing. We agreed and were able to accommodate that as well and we put that in our application and that will be in the development agreement. Lastly we discussed having home sites and -- you know, adjacent to the Black Rock area to be larger in size. We did create larger home sites against our west boundary and the three lots -- actually, there is more than three. We did it on every -- you know, the first two lots in -- are all larger home sites in -- home sites in the balance of the property. We also discussed traffic -- traffic is always neighborhood meeting topics for sure, first and last topic, probably. It's worthy to note that our traffic engineer -- we did perform a full study that showed the streets currently pretty much have minimal traffic on them, but they are designed for our future project and ACHD accepted that staff report and also worthy to note that they did approve -- approve that project as well. We, basically, believe we are a little bit -- not that Black Rock needs a solution, but we are a little bit of a solution for Black Rock on interconnectivity and secondary access. With this being originally a county plat it had the whole back end of this with one access point. There are no secondaries, there are no emergencies. We will be the solution to that, not very near in the future. I don't know -- well, we will get to when that balance of the road to Lake Hazel will get up here shortly. We are always sympathetic to traffic. It is hard to develop and, then, get homeowners and, then, go to develop the next phase. We -- we are sympathetic with -- with the next wave of development. There is a little bit more traffic. I think it's important to note that Black Rock was planned from original approval to have this connection out the south end to us and, then, ultimately to Lake Hazel. It just was part of the planning process from day one. As Josh indicated, it came up that staff had a concern about an additional stub road. ACHD did not share that same concern, but we went and re-drew it and can accommodate that stub and -- and so that condition is in the staff report and we will not -- not be discussing that again, but we have no issue accommodating that and we did run that by ACHD and where that offset is from that intersection is acceptable. So, we will incorporate a new preliminary plat with that in it based off the site plan that was submitted to the city. Basically, it boils down to we just have two staff conditions that we want to go through. The first one being in the Lake Hazel buffer -- buffer requirements. We don't have an issue with the sidewalk. We want our people -- we want actually Black Rock's folks to be able to get to the new park. We believe and understand that's starting construction next year. We would be starting construction next year. So, it would be a benefit for everybody and we want that. What -- what we are proposing in phase two -- and I will put -- with the conditions on the right -- it says modify the condition that Lake Hazel sidewalk improvements from East Ridge Road to the west property boundary will be completed with phase two of the development. So, that will happen. It is premature for sidewalk. You can see existing Lake Hazel and our property for at least half of the stretch of it, it is not unsightly, it is not going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 12 of 57 tore up until that area gets developed and we believe from an aesthetic standpoint that it will be acceptable, that the sidewalk -- could not agree more with Josh and staff that it needs to be in the phase two. Now, I don't think there is anywhere of record of when we are going to finish the spine road and it shows to be in our phase three with -- with the phasing of lots, but I guess I want to be crystal clear and for the neighbors as well, that -- what I'm calling a spine road or that parkway road that will connect to Lake Hazel will occur in phase two. So, it will occur in phase two and we will add that as a condition of approval and could be in the development agreement, of course, along with that sidewalk that you see in red. So, we have no desire to hold off on that spine road for anything past phase two. We should have made that more clear before, but that's never been - - never been another thought with that. Moving to our second item and last item of -- of the staff conditions that we would like to discuss with you on , this just is a unique challenge to preserve the riparian area and develop these three lots. As you can see we have the three lots -- I took the liberty of showing the plat beside it, but we have 24 foot of elevation drop in this particular location. Obviously 64 feet further to the north. But we have 24 foot of elevation drop. So, we agree that, you know, when you're on a flat farm field what staff is asking us to do to come off Cyanite that -- that would be a reasonable request. Where you have a preserve, we just simply cannot fill through that riparian, we would have a 12 or 14 foot fill and, then, another, you know, slope down in the road. It would just destroy the whole point of what we are trying to preserve. So, the only other solution is the common drive as we have drawn. The fire department is okay with it. ACHD has approved it. And our traffic engineering report had to verify that it was acceptable to get ACHD to approve the common drive as drawn in the submitted plat. There is a solution and in our pre-meetings with staff it was -- actually wasn't prohibited of doing a common drive. Staff had indicated that to position the common lot on the property line, like we did, and, then, put a cross- access easement on it, so at some point when that parcel, which, for the record, is a seven or eight hundred or a million dollar house, whatever, if and when they redevelop they will have cross-access on our already built and at that point the access points would be minimized to one . Your -- your UDC code -- and I guess what I'm saying is we are not a flat -- a flat farmland, we -- we have some restraints. We are working very hard to keep that riparian area unencumbered . We are not asking for a waiver to put this common drive to Lake Hazel. In fact, your UDC Code 11-3A3 addresses this very item with language -- and I'm just going to paraphrase and we have a slide of it we could show later, but the intent is to combine or limit access points. Well, we will limit it and there it actually talks in some language in the UDC of putting the cross-access to limit -- when the future develops, then, it will all come to this point. So, we are achieving the same concept of staff is when and if the project develops next to us with that cross - access in place, no different than a commercial project, they will be required to take access from that common drive, it's already built, and no expenses for them to take. We propose that the common driveway be approved as drawn with the condition of a cross-access easement be put to it. We have put a lot of time, effort, and passion over the last year of putting this land plan together and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 13 of 57 moving forward with the -- with the development site plan that you see today. We worked closely with Fire. We have been in Public Works' office more times than they want me to be. With your Planning Department. We have sat down from the onset and all the way through the process with ACHD to obtain the individual and specific approvals that we have to date. As well it needs to be noted that we have been approved by ACHD. East Ridge Estates is a wonderful community that what we are trying to do is utilize the existing topography and riparian area and features as they are. We respectfully request that you approve -- move and approve the East Ridge Estates Subdivision with the two modifications as noted with the site-specific conditions that I put up on the board. Again, I will be quick with those. The first one is Lake Hazel sidewalk improvements in East Ridge. The west property boundary be completed in phase two of the development. And if we need to put spine road language in that we can as well. Site specific condition on the common drive is to modify that condition that Lots 43 to 45 common driveway shall have cross-access easement in favor of the adjacent parcel, which lets us adhere with the UDC requirements. Thank you and I look forward to your approval tonight. McCarvel: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Conger, can you talk to me about sewer and water, about where you guys are -- with the city's kind of limitations with sewer and water, what are you guys' plans both for the loop water system and, then, limitation on the 16 lots for sewer -- your thoughts on that. Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, yeah, we have worked hard with Public Works. We understand where we stand with sewer. We understand where the entire area stands with sewer. There is going to be enhancements in the future and as far as the domestic water goes, that is a next year project scheduled by the City of Meridian. We understand that as well. The development process, as you guys know better than anybody, is a very long process and the approvals are just one stage and they need to be done well in advance. So, we understand the timing isn't today. We don't plan on building this neighborhood this year. But we have to continue to move through. If you were to -- I could show you the zoning map of Meridian you guys just annexed again last year the 5,000 acres that doesn't even have sewer within four miles of it. So, to -- to put a statement that is it time to annex this property or not is a little bit baffling when you guys just annexed -- the City of Meridian annexed 5,000 or more acres. It don't -- that does not have sewer and water within two and three and four miles of that area. So, we have annexed land to the south of us, your park. We have annexed lands to the north of us, Black Rock, and we are annexing a piece in between your cities that's already been annexed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 14 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Would you be amenable to adding a condition -- or adding -- or to modifying that -- the first condition to, basically, also state that the roadway -- that Eastwood Road will be built as part -- in phase two as well? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, absolutely without any doubt that is the intent and adding that to the condition would be proper. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Jim, can you -- is there any other sidewalks anywhere near you -- I mean around you -- around this parcel? There is no other sidewalks you will be abutting into; correct? Conger: No. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, that is correct. There are no sidewalks on Lake Hazel anywhere. We will be the only one in phase two. McCarvel: Anyone else? Mr. Conger, could you speak a little bit to me about -- Josh, could you put that slide up on the plat again. That -- that area in the northwest corner there that I -- by East Hill Way. Yeah. Beach: Northeast corner? McCarvel: Yeah. Northeast corner. What phase was that in and where does that -- I know it's unplatted up there, but where -- where do you plan for that in the future? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, yes, that northeast corner of the property is -- again, is 64 feet below the top parts of the project. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Conger: So, that will be developed in what we are calling phase five, which would be our last phase, and at some point when the property to the north of us is developed, improved, and a road stub. We understand that we are ahead of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 15 of 57 the property to the north. We are setting a stub location -- I have already indicated to that developer that we are flexible. McCarvel: Okay. Conger: We have the flexibility at final plat to locate that . I talked with Josh this morning on that. We have seven lots approved for this area. Obviously, we can't come back with eight. That's not the intent. But we -- I know in the final platting process we have flexibility to move that entry road to make that work and we can work with that developer at that time. McCarvel: Okay. Conger: That stub road isn't much different than the stub road you guys require of us on all our other boundaries, it just happens to be in reverse order. I am dictating to the west boundary where they are going to have to stub to, because between city staff and ACHD I had to put both of those stub roads in. So, we don't see -- it's in reverse order, but people get stubs every day. McCarvel: Yeah. This was a cul-de-sac being in kind of -- I mean so you're open to that northeast corner being different than what's platted right there? Conger: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Question for Mr. Conger. The lots 43, 44 and 45, is there a plan to -- do they have any ability to get foot access , other than to the amenities of the project, other than going out to Lake Hazel? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassanelli, that -- that is a good question. Right now they have -- we have looked at that several ways, but it would be taking the -- the sidewalk out on the frontage straight into our trailhead, which will come off that sidewalk at the top. There is really no way to walk through the personal lots without going through people's yards and the like. But that sidewalk will take them to the main trailhead, which is at the upper end, and will go down through our riparian area at that point. McCarvel: Okay. So, that will be somewhat gravel area down in -- in there and, then, connect into the -- the micropath if needed, if they want to go up that way. Conger: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 16 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just speak a little bit more to that northeast corner and why we restricted development on that -- on that particular portion of the site. As Mr. Conger has mentioned, certainly there is no stub street there at this point. So, typically, as we all know is the first one in sets -- typically sets where the road goes; correct? But there is also no utilities there. So, that's the other thing that we have to look at. The reason why staff is pushing so hard that this corner not develop at this time is because we don't want to set this particular corner of the property up with a cul-de-sac that is greater than what our code allows. So, under our subdivision ordinance a cul-de-sac cannot exceed 450 feet. So, that's a pretty long cul-de-sac at that point. We don't know what's happening to the north of this site, so we certainly want to keep it flexible. I'm happy to hear that Mr. Conger is going to work with the adjacent property owner. It may be a situation where it's your purview to maybe not have that road terminate in a cul-de-sac, you could have them stub it to the east boundary and make it almost like a loop road to help alleviate a lot of staff's concerns with it. But as we have it written in the development agreement -- or at least our recommended conditions in the development agreement that we won't even accept the final plat for that portion of the development until we know what's happening either to the north -- and I think Josh was also going to recommend that or something coming from the east or the north. I think we can keep it that flexible, because there are some vacant ground along to the east boundary of that as well that could develop and annex into the city. So, that's really our concern with it. It's, one, we don't have utilities to it and we don't have any roads to it, but we don't want to set up a road system as part of this development that's going to be restricted in our code in the future. We don't want to set up a cul-de- sac link that's not going to meet our ordinance and that's really why we don't want anything to happen on that until we see what's happening around that corner of the development. So, I just want to just emphasize the importance of that to you this evening. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. At this time we will start with public testimony and there is several people signed up to speak and as we go through it -- try to keep your comments to something new or if you have additional information to add and we will start with Tim Foster. And as you approach the microphone, please, state your name and address for the record. Foster: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Tim Foster. I live at 5805 South Graphite Way in Black Rock Subdivision. I'm here tonight representing a fair amount of the homeowners. Based off of what we have learned we are asking the Commissioners for a denial of this project based off of a lot of their conditions. I'm going to start with -- basically with their connection to us with Cyanite. ACHD did do a traffic study. They -- obviously it did pass. Everything was great. This study was done down on Taconic, which is the main Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 17 of 57 thoroughfare. Not only does Black Rock use it, but also Sky Mesa project, which is still building as we speak, is also using it. So, there is still going to be a fair amount of traffic that's going to be put onto this road without their development as well. The study also didn't report that there is a bus stop on this Taconic right down at the base of Black Rock right where everything narrows in. So, in the mornings and afternoons it's -- it's literally a zoo right there. So, not only will you have your construction guys coming in at that time, you got your students trying to get on the buses and little kids running all over the place. Parents, obviously, park across the sides of the roads and everything. It's really congested and while the ACHD study doesn't show that, you know, based off a brief little moment of time, it is a big concern for us, because of the children's safety. Cyanite really is an auxiliary road. We have always known that it would be connected to some other subdivision at one point, but in our look at this it was never meant to be the main entrance into a subdivision and based off of their setup they want to run 68 homes right off the bat through our subdivision without being connected to Lake Hazel. That would be their first two phases as they have stated tonight. This is just -- to us it's really unacceptable, because you have -- for each house being built you have at least five -- five cars at a minimum of the subcontractors coming in, building these homes. You have dump trucks. You have all the other, you know, construction instruments needed to bring in to build these houses and that's going to put a lot of burden on our little area . I mean it's not a straight shot, like Taconic. It's a little swervy little windy road to get into us. I'm sorry. I got -- East Ridge also counted in their application that they -- stating that the Eagle Road and Taconic was going to have a roundabout. They kind of tried putting this into their -- saying what a great thing it's going to be and how it's going to ease the traffic coming into us and off of us and that type of stuff and everybody knows with the ACHD it's not even in their five -- five year plan now. So, you know, that's in our application. They are trying to make them look good. In reality it's going to be there for them to use. Fo r us Lake Hazel entrance would be a better marketing avenue for them, for East Ridge Subdivision, and -- and, you know, we also would -- we would like to see them start with phase three instead of phase one. You know, we understand that they have to get sewer and everything going and it has to come from our area , but start where your access is better, it's easier to get into, and it will give you a better outlook for your -- your potential customers coming in, not making them wander through Black Rock Subdivision. McCarvel: Mr. Foster, your time is up. If you could wrap up your comments. Foster: Okay. I was actually -- you guys had mentioned, since I'm based off of -- McCarvel: Speaking for an entire HOA? Foster: I'm sorry. I mentioned that right off the bat. McCarvel: You have got seven more then. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 18 of 57 Foster: Okay. Thank you very much. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Foster: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Really quickly. So, by your raising the hands you're saying that they are speaking for you and you're not going to speak; is that correct? Because that's the reason for the ten minutes is -- is he's speaking for you and you're not going to come up, so -- all right. McCarvel: Thank you. Perfect. Okay. Foster: So, we -- on your list there, if I can -- McCarvel: Yes. Foster: We did have every -- based off of some comments that we received from other parties all of our homeowners signed up on there and they signed up to speak. Mainly so that you guys would understand that they are here and that they are voicing their approval -- McCarvel: Perfect. Sure. Foster: -- to what we are going to say. McCarvel: Okay. Foster: The next we are going to look at is lot size in Black Rock. They had mentioned that they tried making them larger on some of our recommendations. While we understand the project does meet the LDR land use, we are requesting these lots adjacent to Black Rock transition better. Currently the average Black Rock size adjacent to them is 24,000 square feet. Their average size adjacent to us is only 11,000 square feet. So, less than half of what we are. When Sky Mesa and Boise Hunter Homes came in and put in -- developed underneath us, they went to great lengths to make sure and make a grea t transition from us down into their subdivision. You know, Sky Mesa putting in average lot sizes of their transition at 20,000 square feet. We are only asking the same from these guys. Actually, read that -- that 11,000 square foot average, you know, we understand it's only a few homes, but when you come from 24,000 square feet down to an 11,000 square foot lot it's a huge -- it's a huge difference. The last thing I want to speak about is landscaping. The current landscaping around Black Rock -- we are all fully landscaped, beautiful -- beautiful paved walkways. All our common areas are all -- and all fully grassed and they represent -- Meridian is a beautiful city. Our opinion is East Ridge Estates is trying to get by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 19 of 57 with some of these minimal amenities. Their rebuttal is going to be the lack of water rights, which they put in a request to use Boise -- use Kuna -- I apologize. Use Meridian City water for irrigation, which we know that they can go in and apply for supplemental water rights through the Idaho Department of Water Resources, which would help them and also help you guys. This way in doing that they would be able to take their natural scenic walkways, which are just their paths and they can pave them and grass them and actually make them similar to Black Rock, Sky Mesa, Century Farms, because that's all the new subdivisions. They are all paved walkways. They are nice grassed areas. People don't want to walk through sagebrush. I mean if we want to do that we have got thousands upon thousands of acres to do that in the south. I apologize. The preservation area that they have been talking about this -- this little creek, it's -- it needs to be called what it is. It's an irrigation ditch. It's not a creek. It's taken care of by Boise-Kuna Irrigation. We don't have a problem if they want to spruce it up, but it's not an amenity. As a matter of fact, you guys know in the summertime, you know, the department -- the irrigation departments are saying stay away from these irrigation ditches and stuff like that. So, if they want to do something do it right. Spruce it up. Grass it up. Don't leave it as a natural walking path, because, in reality, their homeowners aren't going to use it, they are going to walk through their pathways to get either to your guys' park or come into Black Rock, which we don't have any issues with that coming in, walk through our areas and also walk through Sky Mesa. So, finally, with the -- the Cyanite Road issue is poorly planned lot sizes to complement ou r subdivision and the lack of consistent landscaping to the existing adjacent subdivisions and the fact that already the staff report limits the use to 16 homes. We in Black Rock would like to see this -- this design denied and come up with some better -- better outlook for both, not only us as our subdivision, but also for Meridian as well. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Dawn Murphy, is that -- okay. Great. Murphy: Hi. My name is Dawn Murphy. I'm a homeowner in Black Rock Subdivision at 2495 East Cyanite Drive and I have just a couple supplemental things to add to Tim's conversation here and I will be really brief, because I know that you get it, I can tell. So, first of all, this is -- these are some of your City of Meridian images. This is the difference between R-2, R-8. We are -- we have very large lots in our subdivision and -- there and going R-8 right up next to ours, really takes -- yes, the stunning view of the property. Ours is a stunning subdivision, too, and all the way down that bench is another stunning subdivision, which is Sky -- Sky Mesa. So, we are asking you to look at it as a continuation of those other subdivisions and make it just as nice , just as estate-like as ours are. So, if you look at this, Black Rock is above. The new proposed one is below. The density is just too tight. Also here looking at this spur with these homes on this short drive, that's not something that, you know, our neighborhood would want right up next to an estate style subdivision. So, when I talk about an estate style subdivision, this is ours, this is our subdivision. Large homes on large pieces of property. This is the dog leg that we are talking about coming up and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 20 of 57 curving in and going into this cul-de-sac and, then, up into the subdivision in phase one, which is their largest section of their development coming through our subdivision. So, what's important about this is -- and, then, this is, again -- this is my home here. On the left is that Cyanite. I have a very steep drivewa y on a curve and other homeowners on that curve there, too, who have already had accidents of people -- they don't see the dead end sign and they think it goes through. They come right around that corner and we have already had an accident right there at the end of that road. So, we are asking that they build out to Lake Hazel in their first phase -- every phase, whatever you have -- whatever needs to be done, it shouldn't be coming through the subdivision . This is the narrowing of our subdivision right at Taconic. We are right -- right up at Black Rock Subdivision. So, this is Sky Mesa Road on the right and, then, ours narrows there and as you drive through it -- I mean it severely narrows. Then there is a home right on the left of this narrowing. This is where the bus is. This is difficult for us already to get even our own trailers, campers, motorhomes or whatever you want, through this little narrowing, so you had all the construction vehicles, the big trucks, the trailers to deliver their supplies, that's -- I mean it's not reasonable to do that. This is a look at Sky Mesa. This is the additional development that's coming. And, then, I would really -- we have talked about that riparian area enough. Sky Mesa did some amazing amenities. We are asking for them to put in reasonable amenities as well for their, you know, empty-nesters who take children to the park, give them a tot lot, give them something to do in that subdivision. We are paying HOA dues for the amenities that we have. We don't mind them coming through, but I don't think that this developer should be looking at what the city is going to build or what's already built next to them to supplement their amenities. The next one is a little misunderstanding about the fence. We were talking about landscaping with them. These are the fences in our subdivision. The worst case scenario would be the open iron fencing and R- 8. So, that's the worst kind of compromise. We are asking for it to be the same type of subdivision. R-4 with open fencing. This is the best way to get wildlife through this area. So, then, the last one is a water concern. This is the color of the water in our subdivision right now. It's been happening for about three months. I have talked to the city about it. I talked to the DEQ about it. I know that the water is not unhealthy, but this is not water that anybody wants to drink. We have been on bottled water for three months. This was taken January 2nd. My water, along with other people in the neighborhood, and this was taken today. This is not a scoop of something that you really want to be drinking. So, I know that in the notes and some of the testimony for building Black Rock and bring ing it into the City of Meridian there was question of whether -- and I don't know if I have the terms right, whether there was enough lift to get up to these subdivisions and I understand that with building and development below us there is going to be sediment. Sediment in your water for a quarter of the year is a concern and so we would ask that you take this back and look at the utilities very closely, because this is a concern that we have right now. So, these are some of the -- this is just a quick summary. R-4. Please take another look at that plat for the amenities and landscaping, the lot sizes, especially that five spur driveway Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 21 of 57 against the Black Rock neighborhood. The water concerns. And, then, using Black Rock as their construction entrance for the largest phase of their subdivision, which is all of that yellow section on their plat. So, that's what we are asking. Thank you so much. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Instead of going through all of these names, is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this? Black glasses on your head. You're the first one. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Baumgartner: My name is Kathy Baumgartner. 2310 East Lake Hazel. There has been a lot of discussion about Black Rock. I'd like to present my homeowner's association. We are to the west of this property that's being proposed to be developed. We have a very rural setting and we would like to preserve that as much as possible. We understand the concerns of Black Rock. Along their property line the developer said that they would make some accommodations with respect to the lot sizes, but I'd like to suggest that that's not adequate to help preserve the -- the -- the atmosphere out there, the rural nature of that has drawn those people for Black Rock, as well as us, to that -- that rural part of the community. We have made recommendations. Unfortunately, I don't have a massive homeowner's association to increase my numbers and I really felt like the developer failed to -- to address our concerns. We have -- we have the entire west boundary of this property and they have intensified there along the west boundary -- the density along our boundary is significantly higher than along the Black Rock section and we understand that development needs to occur and we are not really even standing in opposition of this development. What we are standing in opposition of is the fact that they failed to make it an adequate transition between existing homeowners and their proposed development. I would like to suggest that this commission help preserve the quality of life that this community has by requiring that this development provide an equitable transition between their development and ours. Increase the density within their subdivision and provide a reasonable transition for those homeowners that are adjacent to this property, including ourselves and those at Black Rock and those to the -- those to the east as well who are on home sites of one and two acres. We are on ten acres and we understand we can't have ten acre parcels next to us. I'm not being unreasonable. But I would -- especially in that northwest corner where they put in a common driveway to ensure that they have the absolute maximum capacity that -- to cram into that little corner -- that has a direct impact on our quality of life. We have also asked that this -- that the developer consider placing a stipulation on those particular lots there in the corner -- the northwest corner at least along our boundary, that first -- that first row, to consider requiring that those five or six homes be single story and they have -- they denied that request, you know, and we feel like that's a reasonable request given, you know -- they are trying to take advantage of this -- the beautiful view that's -- the views that are out there, which, unfortunately, is going to be at our expense, because they are going to -- they feel like the -- that those multi-level homes need to be on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 22 of 57 perimeter of the property, but that directly impacts the neighbors. Unfortunately, there is only one of us, and -- and we don't have the numbers to fight them and we don't have the numbers to stand here and make a large presentation, but I'm requesting that you guys consider putting an additional stipulation on there to help preserve the quality of life that we are accustomed to and we are not opposed to development. We understand development is necessary. But we would like to see some concessions made on behalf of a single landowner, as opposed to a large community that has numbers and support. So, we request that the density in that northwest corner be reduced, especially with removing that -- that common driveway and -- and requesting that they put a stipulation on those five lots that are adjacent to our northwest corner -- to the northwest corner be single -- single level only. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else to testify? Okay. Wageman: My name is Lani Wageman. I'm from Black Rock. I agree with everything that Tim and Dawn have presented and I just wanted to reiterate about the traffic conditions. We have some lots in Black Rock that are being under construction and we have a lot of construction vehicles coming into our neighborhood. It's added to the congestion along Taconic and -- which goes directly into Cyanite. Sky Mesa has many, many vehicles going through their neighborhood. I have gone through a couple of times, because that street goes all the way through to Amity and there is a number of times when I have had to turn around and go back, because you can't get through the streets there is so many construction vehicles. So, Taconic is getting many, many vehicles on it at this time. I mean eventually it will settle down when every -- all the construction is done. But it's -- it's very congested and now Taconic goes across the street to Century homes and that intersection of Taconic and Eagle is gett ing a little dicey where there is a joint turn lane into each of the neighborhoods and -- and I hope that there is some studies being made there to see if the roundabout will get put in or maybe even lights or stop signs. I don't know. It's -- it's pretty scary and especially when the weather is bad and there is a lot of snow, like this winter, Taconic was barely a one way, one lane road, which, you know, a lot of other neighborhoods were in the same situation, but if you add many, many construction contractor vehicles to that, it's just compounded. So, I am requesting, again, just reiterating if there can be a Lake Hazel access to this new subdivision going in. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Are you from Black Rock Subdivision? Stroo: I am. McCarvel: Do you have something new to add or -- okay. Stroo: I do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 23 of 57 McCarvel: And your name. Stroo: My name is Jim Stroo. 2495 East Cyanite. Madam Chair, Commissioners. Thank you. We talked about landscaping -- McCarvel: Speak into the microphone. Stroo: We talked about landscaping. Our home is directly adjacent to the new proposed subdivision. Our lot has roughly about an eight foot drop within 15 feet of that lot line. My concern is what the developer is going to do from a landscaping to control groundwater, both natural and irrigation, and he indicated that there would be a ten foot setback. So, it's conceivable we would have a home within ten feet of our lot irrigating and possible runoff into our entire yard . So, I would like to see something addressed as far as how that groundwater can be controlled to direct it out towards the street away from our lot. The second point was brought up about the -- getting the stub or the road access from Lake Hazel. One thing to consider is fire and rescue, if you look at the plat those homes that are being built, the length of time it would take to come off of Eagle Road and wind its way versus the time from Lake Hazel to those homes in the back of that subdivision, I think it's something you would want to look at to enforce having the ability to go directly out to Lake Hazel right away. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Green shirt. Hamel: Madam Chair, Commissioners. Chad Hamel. 1025 South Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. I'm with Boise Hunter Homes. We are the developer of Sky Mesa and I just wanted to be sure -- we submitted a letter earlier this afternoon and make sure it got in your packet and on the record. I'm not sure if you got that or not. McCarvel: It was in there. Yeah. Hamel: Okay. So, just to be real quick then. We just have two concerns. We are not opposed to the development at all, but we are the property owner to the north, also developer of Sky Mesa. First off with -- in regards to the stub street to the northeast on East Maesaia or -- Mr. Parsons illustrated our concern, basically, is that that's a long cul-de-sac to be connecting to our street -- to our property and we are just in the beginning portions of the land planning process and we just want to make sure that we can work with Mr. Conger and their team to identify a cul-de-sac or a stub street that works, just because that is an awful long cul-de-sac. Your code allows 450 feet. That is probably pretty close to that. I don't want to be -- you know, we have to work with something that works for our plan as well, so we would like that to be a condition. Secondly, the sewer was touched on briefly. There was only 16 units capacity as us being the developer of Sky Mesa and the remaining 105 acres that are part of Black Rock that we will be bringing before you shortly, we will be required to extend trunk sewer and we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 24 of 57 would like this property to be included into a -- some sort of reimbursement agreement for the extension of that trunk main sewer. It is allowed in your code and I know City Council just recently tasked staff with forming a workgroup or a work session to investigate your -- your reimbursement policy and, you know, by us extending off-site sewer across neighboring property down Amity through this, it directly benefits this subdivision. We would just ask that this property pay their pro rata share as part of the reimbursement program. So, that's all I had. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing Boise Hunter Homes. They have retained my firm to do the land planning and the civil engineering for the Sky Mesa East. So, I just wanted to let the Commission know that we have been working on our design. We have already pre-app'd with Ada County Highway District. I will be setting up a pre-app with the city staff here within probably the next few days and I just want to make sure that what they are proposing -- where they are completely reliant on our development for their access, that what they are proposing will logistically work. I have looked at the topography and, you know, it's pretty steep there. If that roadway shifts eastward it works better. We have in our land plan a cul-de-sac. We are already at the maximum of 450 feet maximum length . So, I'm not quite sure how it works. You know, this isn't your normal stub street situation. I wouldn't want to end up where we had a reverse variance -- Bill, I guess that's the only way to describe it -- that they have already utilized the 450 feet in a cul- de-sac that relies on intersecting with my public street. So, there is just some things that, obviously, you know, I think we can work with -- with Mr. Conger and -- and come up with a solution with him and with your staff. But I just want to make sure that there is a condition that -- that addresses that that coordination is required and, secondly, as Chad indicated, the sewer -- we will be -- they have had to acquire a sewer easement through a property north of Amity. They will have off-site sewer, bringing an 18 inch -- it will be oversized, over depth and, obviously, the development of this property is contingent on connecting to that sewer. The size of that sewer is necessary in order to serve other properties and not just my clients. So, technically, under the reimbursement program that the city has, the oversized and the over depth or the additional capacity that the development is adding to Meridian's system to serve other developments you are eligible for reimbursement and that there are late comer fees that are placed on projects like this one that are going to benefit from infrastructure that we are oversizing. So, we want to make sure that that -- you know, that that's placed on the record that that would be applicable to this development as they proceed forward with final plats and building permits in the future. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. And the gentleman in the green in the back, who so graciously stepped aside. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 25 of 57 Cantrell: Madam Chairman and City Council Members, Don Cantrell. I live at 3000 East Lake Hazel Road. Basically my concerns are not only the traffic at this time, but the speed limits. It's tough to cross Lake Hazel Road to retrieve my mail, because we have two blind spots coming up off of Eagle Road going east, as well as when -- there is another blind spot coming on the west going piece. When you're going west and going east there is two blind spots and if you're not looking at least twice there is usually a car at either location and they are all doing 50 plus and it's really tough and no one's going to slow down while we get our mail. There has been a couple times we have almost got whacked as it is. With that being said, my other concerns are the property values. If I may use -- my parents, who purchased a home over in South Fork Subdivision off South Cole in 2005, with a purchase price at 375,000 and 25,000 improvements, it's been on the market since July of last year for 378,000. They had numerous showings, but they all had the same concern . Corey Barton had purchased all the land around South Fork development and is building homes there that has dropped the value of the subdivision between 13 and 17 percent of the neighbors in that subdivision, which is 45 homes at this time. My parents just sold their house last Friday, so they had 400,000 invested. The best they could get -- all of the same concern in the last eight months was the homes being built around that subdivision, which is Corey Barton. They had to take an offer of 320,000. So, once again -- and their home was 2,800 square feet, four car garage, fully landscaped, new carpet, freshly painted, hardwood floors. Once again, sold for 320 just because of that subdivision being around -- being built around the other lower upper. Once again, which is a concern, once again, what's going to happen with the homes around Eagle and Lake Hazel that are being built -- that are built at the average between 400 ,000 and a million and lots that's going for 250,000 an acre up there in Black Rock as well. It is also -- so, once again, the concern is what's going to happen to our property values. I own also the thirty acres adjacent to the east, which I raise cattle on as well. A concern is I haven't heard anything about a fence where I have got to be concerned about the dogs coming into my pastures chasing the cattle. So, anyway, I guess those are my concerns at that time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay. Please come forward. And state your name and address as you approach the microphone. Ewing: I'm Sherrie Ewing and I live on Lake Hazel also. So, in the Diamond Ridge Homeowners Association. I am here on -- on the request of the Patels, which live next to the three lots in the southeast corner. They were -- it was said that they are an undeveloped lot next to them , which is totally wrong. There is a single dwelling home there and it is part of the Diamond Ridge Homeowners Association, which says you can have single homes on each lot, which are two acres long, and I'm sure you could put extra homes there , but the HOA says, no, you can't. So, there is some miscommunication here going on on that. And we are also concerned about the size of the homes, being our lots are two acres and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 26 of 57 these are smaller homes. Of course, that is a concern, just like my neighbor Mr. Cantrell just said. The traffic on Lake Hazel is tremendous. We have got the Nova soccer fields just a mile -- half a mile down from us on Lake Hazel and when they are playing soccer we can't hardly get through our -- between Lake Hazel and Eagle and the -- the road coming up Eagle is totally blocked three- fourths of the mile coming up. Then we are going to have a Meridian park with five baseball fields just a half a mile down from us . So, we are going to have to use helicopters to get in and out. So, that is a concern of ours. I guess my feeling is if they want to have their subdivision, go for it, but make larger homes, smaller -- or less people, so you have less traffic. The other concern that I have - - and I might have just not read the map right , but the sidewalk that they were talking about on Lake Hazel, I'm hoping that it comes all the way to the east property owners and I'm not sure that it did. Anyway, I just want to make sure that we have a -- a sidewalk clear through the whole thing. Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else wishing to testify from the public? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger again. Just to walk through and address a couple items and just a reminder, I mean -- and you know what the application -- we are at 2.8 homes per acre. We are low density. Eight acres of open space, as we said earlier. Greater than 20 percent. We did meet with Ms. Baumgartner, our west -- west neighbor. We -- if you look at the plat, our west boundary is larger lots. Our interior go down to 60 foot wide lots. They are -- we -- we attempted to keep the perimeter bigger. Interior is definitely smaller lots on the plan that's in front of you. And that was, again, on that west boundary as well. As far as dirty water in Black Rock, that's great news, because we are the solution to that. That's a dead end system and we have to connect. That will take it to Lake Hazel. That will connect it back to Eagle Road and that will circulate, which is exactly what your Public Works wants, which the park is the driving point for the water, but the other part is you have got a dead end system out there, which your Public Works does not do very often. So, that will be solved. As far as we understand traffic concerns -- and what I -- what I think is being missed here a little bit about all our original county -- now city neighbors and some of the other county neighbors that are discussing this, your regional park was selected for a reason. Lake Hazel is slated to be seven lanes. It will be the connecting east-west road, which originally, less than five years ago, was going to be Amity. It has changed. Lake Hazel is going to be the connector that goes between Meridian, all the way to Boise, all the way behind the airport, and connects to Gowen Road on the other side. So, we understand that change isn't comfortable. We are a small component -- very small component of that. Over the next seven to eight years to ten years that road will get to three lanes. That road will get to five lanes, that road will get to seven lanes and it is slated to be a major arterial for east-west on the south part of Meridian. As far as north neighbor, Boise Hunter Homes, yes, we already talked with them. We understand that. Chad is a little bit wrong. He is not the owner of the north Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 27 of 57 property. They have it under contract. It's owned by Black Rock, LLC, which is Doug McMaster. So, if and when they get to the approval process and if they are the ones that actually close on the property -- but there is -- there is a lot of ifs there. No matter what that north property would have to be stubbing to this parcel anyhow. So, we feel we can work it out, but they are not the landowner and we had heard earlier yesterday that they weren't noticed or somet hing, but it's because they aren't the landowner, it went to a different P.O. box. It went to Black Rock, LLC. Off-site sewers. We understand all of that. The city's latecomer fees have always been difficult. We were part of the group that did Bellingham Park, which put in the 24 inch trunk that they are going to now grab. There was no reimbursement for that 24 inch trunk that the group I was with just installed. In fact, we did phase four in Bellingham Park less than two years ago that did the balance of that 24 inch. Mr. Turnbull with Brighton grabbed the next piece of it and took it up and, then, Boise Hunter Homes will be grabbing that part. Typically speaking with the latecomers -- and that is, again, a Public Works item and not a land planning item and we will work through that with Public Works. But typically that latecomers would be with the associated property that it goes across, as Becky indicated, yes, the overdig, the oversize, but that's typically, whether you're in Boise or whether you're in Meridian, with the property that is going across. So, we have all done this long enough we understand latecomers, we understand the principle of it, and we understand whose responsibility is what. We are a small percent of acreage for this entire sewer shed. So, we'd love to carry our own weight. No issue. But it is a Public Works issue, not a land planning issue. I think focusing now -- and I will button up in the next 30 seconds -- is we understand the needs for our folks and we think we understand the needs for other folks of Lake Hazel, that sidewalk would be -- we would definitely entertain modifying that condition to add our spine road connection out to Lake Hazel with phase two, so that would be done. I think what I heard from one of the neighbors is we would have phase one and two done before that road, before if we committing to put it in with phase two, obviously, that roadway would have to be done before building permits would be available for phase two. So, that commitment still stands. And, then, I guess I could go on forever on the riparian area and how we don't want to carve up and tear through the middle of that, whether it be a boring irrigation ditch as we heard or a seasonal creek, it will be spectacular when we are done. I think your UDC allows the minimization of driveways. We have done that. ACHD has approved it, Meridian Fire has approved it, and we just respectfully request that you take our -- that condition, B-11-C1 with what we have in front of you today. With that definitely open to questions and appreciate the opportunity to be heard tonight. McCarvel: Any questions from the Commissioners at this point? Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Question for Mr. Conger. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 28 of 57 Bernt: How many total homes in the subdivision? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Bernt, there are 117 homes on the 41 acres. Bernt: And how much in phase one? How many will be built in phase one? Conger: It will range either from 40 to 50 lots. I think we are showing 50 or even up to 60 in the phasing diagram, that will all be predicated upon sewer. Bernt: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Conger, can you speak to the -- the concerns regarding the construction vehicles coming in and out of Black Rock Subdivision during phase one especially? Conger: Yes. You bet. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes, there -- you know, during the development stages we can commit and -- commit for the development portion of the project that we will use Lake Hazel as the -- I will call it primary. I'd like to use the word only access, but there may be times we would have to come into public roads. They are public roads, of course. But with the development we can commit to coming off of Lake Hazel and we try to do that in many cases if that opportunity is there. As far as our builders, typically speaking, a majority of the trades have to travel on public roads that are asphalted and coming across country would not be acceptable. Phase one does have an emergency access, but, of course, those have to be gated and bollard and wouldn't be open for daily traffic. McCarvel: Anybody else? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, a couple other ones that I have. The gentleman talked about the property to the east. He's got his cattle and what about fencing, were you planning to do anything along that end? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we did not have fencing planned on that side. We have -- I mean I have walked that property dozens and dozens of times. It currently is fenced. I think he had mentioned dogs or something of that nature, so I understand that, but right now on that east Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 29 of 57 boundary we did not have any fencing envisioned. I think six foot solid vinyl fence typically doesn't survive next to cows and things of that nature, so that's probably a difficult -- difficult request a little bit that is, so a stock fence, which we think would be sufficient, but -- Yearsley: Okay. So, I heard a lot of c omplaints about Taconic and Eagle needing a signal. In your traffic study did the -- did they take into account all the growth that's already proposed along Taconic with that Sky Mesa Subdivision with your counts? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, with ACHD's requirements about two or three years ago -- years ago traffic study requirements drastically changed the -- the amount of work and effort put into a traffic study. So, yes, it took into account all of the surrounding areas. At -- at some point they have to look at the raw land, but, of course, they don't know what's on that raw land, but -- but, again, currently I think that road down towards the bottom per that traffic study is 17 or 19 percent. I mean it's inside the report, but -- Yearsley: And there was no signal warrants at the intersection; correct? At Eagle and -- at Eagle and Taconic, so you didn't meet any signal warrants or anything at that point? Conger: No. Commissioner Yearsley, we -- we did not meet any warrants and I believe the roundabout discussion was not in our application , I believe it was noted in the traffic study because they have to take the COMPASS and the ACHD information and utilize it within there. So, I think that's where they must have read the roundabout. That was not in our project. Yearsley: Right. Yeah. I think that's part of ACHD's future -- Conger: Future plan. Yearsley: -- future plan. So, I'm just going to throw this out here. Why not more -- make it a lesser density, more -- bigger estate lots, kind of like the Black Rock Subdivision? Just want to hear your take on it. Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's a great question. We -- we worked through large lot plans all the way to small lot plans . What probably should be done on this property -- I guess what -- what keeps driving it -- let me back up one step -- is what is Lake Hazel going to be in ten years. What is Lake Hazel going to be in 20 years. Well, Lake Hazel in 20 years is going to be Chinden. So, this isn't a location -- as we radiate towards Lake Hazel Black Rock is a location for larger lots. As you radiate to Lake Hazel there is no business with big estate lots at some point. The neighbors that are the big lots have concerns and I understand that concern , I would have the same concern. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 30 of 57 Lake Hazel is going to be a Chinden in less than 12 years, 15 years. So, through our land plans you can't -- as you radiate to that park, which is why you guys centered your park on that, is that's going to be the major transportation node. When you radiate towards those arterials you cannot be large lots. It makes no sense. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, I think I have one last question. On the west lots -- or, no, the north lots that you're butting up against, there is -- there is quite a discrepancy from 24,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet . Is there any thought to making them 15 to 18 thousand instead of the ten to be a little bit more compatible? Because to me 10,000 and 24,000 isn't as compatible as some may think. Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioners Yearsley, as far as home sizes -- so, there is lot sizes, there is home sizes and there is home values. We have heard -- heard all the above. You know, our rim lots -- our homes will be greater than 500,000 dollars. So, there was discussions of us being tight, packed in, and cheap homes. These are quality homes and I am saying it out loud, these rim lots, which is a majority of the lots, will be 500,000 dollars and greater. So, to have bigger home sites that just have more yard, more landscaping, didn't really fit in as we go through and radiate out away from that. We are 180 feet in depth. I mean our lots are drastically bigger, of course, than our lots in the center of the project and we are getting closer to their size, but we are still half. I mean there is just no way to have -- you know, they -- they were originally Ada county lots, sewer system was a little bit different. It was a temporary pump station. I think there is a lot of reasons. I did a ranch in east Boise that Ryan's familiar with. We did larger lots, because we didn't have enough sewer and it was a 20 years away program. Our second phase fit the -- the system and fit what public works was now available. As taxpayers -- I mean larger lots, sanitary sewer systems, all of the streets and infrastructure -- having larger lots in -- in what I'm going to call a more urban setting as we get towards Lake Hazel -- somebody's got to pay for the main -- I mean to go big lots doesn't make -- doesn't make sense. Yearsley: And I wasn't asking for 20,000 square f oot lots, I was thinking maybe 15 or something like that, just slightly bigger to try to come up with a little bit more landscaping, just -- Conger: Yeah. I mean we can turn the lots and be 15 feet away instead of ten, but, then, we have backs of homes into their backs of homes and you have got two active centers at each other. We were attempting to put the quiet side to their backyards to really prevent us from having an active side of the house to their active side of the house. So, we think we have already kind of done that and that's the whole reason for the common drive. Everybody's thinking it's to gram them in. We can turn them around, but now we have an active side of the house to an active side of the house , which we have had and done enough Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 31 of 57 projects that typically a quiet side of the house to an existing neighbor's backyard is usually a little more received. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: I -- Fitzgerald: Oh. Go ahead. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair. Mr. Conger, can you talk to Becky's point about having a drive-thru on those northeast lots? Is that an option? Isn't that in a cul- de-sac into a stub street or an option there? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald -- and I think Josh alluded to that as well. So, being able to take where -- where we are showing that cul-de-sac and, then, extending -- I think if -- anything of that nature is certainly doable. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, before we let Mr. Conger off the hot seat here, could -- maybe ask him about his plans for that -- those lots with the slope easements on them. We -- staff's presentation to you, we wanted to see something tonight as to how they were going to tackle that and who was going to maintain the slope. So, maybe you can eliminate on that -- eliminate that -- or at least address that for you tonight as well. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. That was going to be my next question. Conger: So, the -- we keep hearing -- you know, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we keep hearing slope easement and things of that nature. We don't necessarily believe in slope easements. We have done enough foo thills projects we know how to grade lots and we know who should be responsible with any water that comes off a slope. So, these homes aren't atypical for p roperties with slope. Most of Meridian is flat farmland, so it is a little bit different. But our property line is on top of that slope, so the downstream home controls that. It's not an easement, it is literally their backyard. These lots are 150 foot in depth, where other lots above them are 120 feet. So, we have given an additional 30 feet to those lower lots through the land planning process to accommodate that slope and that is typical as anything else, in all reality. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 32 of 57 Yearsley: What -- what type of slopes are you looking at on -- on those areas? Can you give me an idea of what those slopes are? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, they won't be two to one, they will be closer to three to one in that slope. Now, a homeowner will have the opportunity to -- you know, to landscape and do a few retaining walls or something. We will disallow any structures. So, no awnings or no gazebos or anything of that nature in our CC&Rs. We have done numerous projects like this and we do have a provision that won't allow anything of that nature, so -- Yearsley: And has the soils -- have you done a soils report to handle -- because I know three to one is -- is still fairly steep. You know, we typically go four to one for shoulders and stuff like that off of a roadway. Has a soils report been done to -- to verify that the vegetation can grow in the three to one? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, absolutely. We do not get more than 50 or 60 thousand dollars deep in an approval process without doing a soils report. Yeah. We will -- we may -- you know, we will salvage some topsoil. We may have to import some topsoil like normal on some slopes , but, yeah, the soils condition is -- is not an issue for sure. Yearsley: Okay. Conger: And three to one -- I mean the parks departments go four to one to mow. So, three to one -- two to one is a little -- a little steep. Three to ones are not steep. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? I just had one more question. We heard some comments about the amenities being just basically walking pathways. Do you have any comment towards the light amenities? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, we -- we do not believe are amenities are light. The financial package associated with everything we showed is far from light. We don't have a lot of tot lot specific type amenities in our program. Our profile of homeowner is probably a little more mature and in a little bit different part of life, which would have them grandchildren, we understand that. Typically speaking when you are within a softball throw of a 77 acre regional park -- it's slated to be under construction in a timeline faster than we are, the tot lots and some of those more typical environments you just don't do. We have put our money into the site, into, again, our social gathering kind of view area and things of that nature. The regional park will suffice for the grandchildren and we can't wait for it to happen . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 33 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? Going once, going twice. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Cassanelli: Mr. Conger, we have got the -- I see the lot sizes. We have got the number of homes. What are average home sizes on their own? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassanelli, home sizes will range -- I don't believe we will have any down in the 18s, but 2,000 to 3,500 square feet. It's a wide variety. But it will really depend on which lot we are talking about for sure. So, that will range -- again, rim lots with -- with the house included will be in that 500,000 dollar range. We would love to be less than that, but it's not possible. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. Conger: Thanks for your time. McCarvel: Okay. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2016-0137. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, so moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item H-2016-0137. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. Any comments? I think there is a lot to chew on here. I think we have had a lot of discussion already in our answers, but I think we have got some issues of -- obviously with the annexing, staff has a concern of -- I think is it -- as far as their report goes, you know, is this even the right time for it, but I think there is enough discussion here to discuss the issues at hand and possibly move forward. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yearsley: I have actually one question for Bill. We talk about the 16 lots. Now, is that what they are allocating to this subdivision or is that a total 16 lots for everything that's being developed out there? Do you know? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 34 of 57 Parsons: Madam President, Members of the Commission, what had happened is when Boise Hunter Homes came through, did their first phase of White Park Subdivision, came in and brought in Southern Highlands, at that time our Public Works Department did a -- they commissioned a study. Working with the applicant they determined that I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe it's 168 lots that could be serviced off an eight inch main if it was brought in with their development. They did that. So, they are allocated their specific lots. So, taking out what they have been approved to construct and what's left based on that study, the 16 is -- is the number -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- that Public Works feels comfortable with that can be served with the current infrastructure that's in place in that stub street today. Sixteen is the number until that -- unless they update their master plan and they have come up with -- something else happens and there is more capacity. But until then they are hard fast at 16. And, yes, that was taken into account what's already been allocated with that eight inch line. Yearsley: That's what I was -- I was just kind of curious. Okay. McCarvel: So, basically, in all reality phase one really can't move forward until -- Yearsley: Yeah. They can only build a handful of homes -- McCarvel: Right. Yearsley: -- on phase one. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff as well. McCarvel: Sure. Perreault: What's the approximate distance to the nearest subdivision with similar densities? Is that Century Farm? Beach: That's a fantastic question. I have the answer. So, zoom out here and take a look. Yeah. So, we have got -- Perreault: And I have got a second part to that question. Beach: Sure. Perreault: Is there anticipation that there will be similar subdivisions coming in in the near future because of the park? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 35 of 57 Beach: A couple of great questions. So, I don't know that the park necessarily is a driver for development, but it's -- as Mr. Conger has indicated -- part of the reason why I think they are developing this piece is because the park will be coming in. So, I think we may anticipate some additional properties around this being developed. I don't think that it's a hindrance to development by any means, because there is going to be a lot of amenities there at that park. As far as your first question goes, you have Hill Century Farm over here to the east is probably the closest. There is also a development up here to the north, Southern Highlands, that relatively -- nothing's relatively that -- they are relatively close, but they are not -- not terribly close. There is not a whole lot of development, aside from Black Rock and Sky Mesa and White Bark in this section of property and as we get -- this is kind of the edge of the -- the edge of development right now. Everything else further to the south is -- Perreault: Can you show me where the area of impact is there? Is it -- Beach: One more time? Perreault: Does the area of impact stop at Lake Hazel or further south? Beach: So -- don't have that map in front of me, but the area of impact kind of jogs. It goes down to Columbia -- Perreault: Okay. Beach: -- on the east side and, then, kind of jogs back up to the -- to Lake Hazel as it gets further west. But the majority of this property here is in the city's area of impact. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't necessarily think the park's going to -- the park will drive some development. What's going to drive the development is when someone extends that trunk line through there. We all know that's what's going to drive development down there, so -- but everything in that area, from my experience being with the city, most of the developments down in south Meridian are -- usually it's under three acres -- three units to the acre. It's low density. So, Tuscany, Southern Highlands, Hill Century Farms are all three or less. So, this is pretty consistent to what we are seeing developing out there. Yearsley: What isn't even -- because we have -- we have preliminary platted the other portions of Sky Mesa -- other phases of Sky Mesa and they were of similar size and density as well, if I remember right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 36 of 57 Parsons: That is correct. And they -- I believe they came in with an R-4 zone and staff was toying with that recommendation, but when we saw some of the lot sizes just kind of fell under those dimensional standards of the R-8 -- or of the R- 4 zone, we felt comfortable with what they were proposing and what we had tied them to in the development agreement, we felt comfortable with the lot sizes and the density they were proposing with the subdivision. Yearsley: So, is he going for the R-8 just for the building offsets, more than likely? Parsons: I don't necessarily think that's the case. As you mentioned some of the interior lots are to that 6,600 square feet with 60 feet of frontage. In the R-4 zone the minimum lot size is 8,000. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: In the R-8 zone it's 4,000. So, he still exceeds the minimum in the R-8 district. I think he just wanted that flexibility for his internal lots and, then, try to provide some of that buffering around the perimeter. Now, I would mention to the Commission -- and I had a nice conversation with Mrs. Baumgartner as well about transitional lot sizes along that west boundary and if you look at our Comprehensive Plan along -- and her property where she sits, right now she is rural, but next to that piece that Mr. -- next to this piece on the west boundary we have a portion of her property is medium -high density residential and the other is medium density residential. So, if you look long-term -- right now it may not be the exact transition we are looking for, but if you look at long-term and what Mr. Conger testified to what that -- that Lake Hazel is going to be a mobility corridor, we are going to want density along that street to get transit in that area , because of those connection points. So, that's why when we did our analysis of the lot sizes in that we felt it did transition, because we know what's -- what our future land use map tell us. So, yeah, we need to look at what's happening today, but we also have to look at what the long term is for that area and that's what we currently have on the books today. Fitzgerald: Josh, can you bring up the land use map, because I think that's -- that's going to tell us some of the conversation, because I don't -- I don't think -- and, Madam Chair, I apologize, ask you for permission to talk. McCarvel: You may speak. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Because I think that's part of the conversation we need to look at is there is a park there. I mean if you look at the parks that we have in Meridian that have recently been built, we are building density all around them and so if this is truly a quarter of that -- is going to speak to that, I -- I don't think this is -- I don't know. I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonable. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 37 of 57 McCarvel: Go ahead. Bernt: Madam Chair, in past conversation with the -- you know, previous conversations on developments, Commissioner Wilson said something very poignant and -- maybe it was Commissioner Fitzgerald, I don't remember, but -- maybe it was actually Commissioner Fitzgerald that said that development is coming this direction. You know, there is -- there is no way of getting around it. You know, homes are going to be building all over the place in south Meridian and, unfortunately, you know, or, fortunately, however you look at it, it just coincides with -- with the city master plan and -- you know. With what Bill said -- Mr. -- Mr. Parsons said, we have got to look at, you know, not -- you know, development -- how it will impact the City of Meridian, not right now, but in, you know, a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now and looking at it in that prospective and the density along Lake Hazel, I -- I think it makes sense. McCarvel: I think the gross density report comes out -- I mean because there is so much open space -- I get it that it's more open space and you have got a little bit smaller lot sizes, but the gross density for -- even though it's -- they are requesting the R-8, gross density is 2.85. Fitzgerald: That's -- Madam Chair. And that's just to deal with the -- the elevation. Absolutely. And I don't think -- we don't deal with that in Meridian as much as they do in Boise along the foothills range and that's a big deal. You have to allow for, you know, some -- some -- a little bit of flexibility as they deal with typography and so that's -- I think it's something that we need to take into account. Beach: As I mentioned in my presentation, this -- this property splits both the medium density and -- excuse me -- the medium density and the low density. So, going from east to west it -- it gets denser as we get toward this corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel. I think the home -- turn this on for a second so we can take a look at it. Home kind of splits the Comprehensive Plan designation there for medium high to medium. So, as I said, we anticipate that -- that buffer getting denser as we get towards that corner. Yearsley: So, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I like the plan. I think it's done -- I think he's thought it through well. I understand the neighbors' concerns of being rural and -- and -- and having urban thrust upon them, but, you know, he is correct, this -- this area is growing and the only thing that is hindering the growth right now is sewer and as that sewer gets pushed farther out I think you're going to see this area explode. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 38 of 57 Yearsley: So, I don't know what to tell them. Initially, the three lots to the southeast I was thinking to go ahead and leave, but if -- if Lake Hazel is to be a seven lane in the future, I'm -- I'm concerned about making a driveway for three homes on a seven lane roadway. So, my opinion is is, no, I don't think we should have access to Lake Hazel for those three lots , in my opinion. Also I agree that the west portion of the sidewalk should be b uilt with phase two and the -- and the collector road, but I think that the eastside should be built with phase three, in my opinion, because at that point those areas should be built out and so -- as regard to traffic within the Taconic, you know, he has stated that he will run his -- his construction when they put in the water and sewer and the streets and stuff like that, through Eagle Road -- I think is a good amenity -- you know, good -- good deal. Trying to think what other -- the one request to making single family homes up against the -- the rural, I struggle with that. If they have a -- have a two-story home next to them, so I don't like that condition. If -- so, I think it's -- with those I think I'm -- I'm in favor of the project. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: May I ask Mr. -- or Commissioner Yearsley a question? So, in regards to -- I mean I -- the natural setting and Commissioner Bernt and I can speak to this, because we live in Woodbridge, so the natural setting of having a riparian area -- and that's -- digging a bulldozer to that area to get access to those three lots I don't think is a good idea. So, what -- because you're doing cross- access right there. What would be an option that doesn't carve across the middle of the area that's already being used for -- Yearsley: And I -- I agree with that. And you don't know on this property to the -- the southeast -- or, no, to the -- to the east side how it will develop -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: -- and he may be able to have a road come up and stub up there in the future. McCarvel: I think the northeast and the southeast sections not be part of the plat right now and just -- I mean -- because you got so much going on that that needs to remain flexible and get developed when those areas surrounding it -- Yearsley: Yeah. That's my thought is -- is he can go and plat those areas -- Fitzgerald: You mean without parcels, is that -- Yearsley: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 39 of 57 Fitzgerald: Okay. And I get the idea of having flexibility for an entrance east- west or east-north on the north side. I -- the ones on the bottom -- I mean that -- that's a one to two acre lot -- Josh, how big is that thing? Because that's -- that's going to be a long time to develop I would suspect. Considering there is a million dollar house on it. Beach: From the 2868? Yeah. I think it's a couple acres. Fitzgerald: Yeah. And there a million dollar house it. I mean that's not going to develop any time soon. Yearsley: Well, what I'm saying is is -- you know, the -- the property to the north of that may have an opportunity to develop sooner and they could run a little stub road up to there, do a cul-de-sac and that 2868 could actually take access off that and -- and remove his access off of Lake Hazel at the time -- McCarvel: Yeah. And a road go out. Yearsley: -- is what my thought was. Fitzgerald: Got it. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding where you were going. Yearsley: So -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, could I ask staff a question in regards to that? So, the preliminary plat, obviously, we can leave it a little bit amorphous in regards to those three lots, but when is this -- what does that give the applicant an option for that -- those three lots at the bottom? I mean are we not incorporating it into the plat or how -- what are our options? Beach: So, to answer your question, they have given those lot and block -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: -- and so those right now I believe are part of phase one . The condition as it's currently written is that they can't develop those -- I mean they will be lots, but they are not available until they have access either through some property further to the east the way the applicant -- or -- or to Cyanite. So, the condition is connect to Cyanite. And I realize that they have that as part of their -- their water amenity as they are calling it and, then, that would potentially ruin that amenity in that area, but the fact that Lake Hazel is going to be a seven lane road in the future gives staff a lot of pause as to why we want to have additional accesses onto that busy of a road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 40 of 57 McCarvel: Yeah. I don't know -- Fitzgerald: So, those are -- Josh, during your pre-app or during your application meeting was that -- a conversation to go north and east an option? I mean those are pretty big lots, so you're going to need -- if you have a road running up through those, I mean it's doable, but I -- Beach: Sure. And as Jim had indicated, we talked about several different things on this. He indicated that there was potential to do a cross -access there, so that those three homes and 50 years from now the home to the east is no longer worth a million dollars -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: When that redevelops, then, they would all take access to that one point. I don't know that we are necessarily a fan of that, but we were ta lking through some of the options with this and that still gives staff pause and you pick up potentially six lots to take access into a seven lane road, which isn't -- isn't better than three lots taking access to a seven lane road. So, I realize it is difficult to plan this corner, because of the topography and the way that the existing homes are on the east side. You got staff opinion on that and so we will let you make that decision, but that's where we are as staff and the concerns that we have with that. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the other option we toyed with is just have the applicant plat them as two larger lots and just make them nonbuild until other properties happen around and, then, someone can come in and resubmit it in the future as properties as acquired, but certainly we can try to give him some flexibility at this time, but that's the other option. I mean we -- we typically don't want to leave property outside of the boundary of the plat. So, either we -- we have got to say don't develop it, don't submit a final plat until the property is developed or we just say revise the plat and make it one large lot and come back and resubdivide it in the future when other -- when we have more -- more development around you. It just may not be time to develop those two pieces at this time. Bernt: I like that idea. Yearsley: I do, too. I think that makes it a lot cleaner and, like I said, you know, initially when I first heard it I thought, you know, it would be okay, but if there is going to be seven lane that's just going to be a nightmare in the future that we are going to create for ourselves. Perreault: Madam Chair, it's my understanding from Mr. Conger that the topography limits the possibility of bringing a road from Cyanite because of the drop there; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 41 of 57 Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: But, like I said, we could pull from future developments and bring a road up there and from what we h eard from Boise Hunter Homes, the properties at 5899 up there, it's looking to come in for preliminary plat in the near future, too, potentially. So, I mean growth is going to happen pretty fast and so -- it's coming. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, question for staff. Everything right now around there in the yellow is all -- is all R-4; is that correct? Beach: That is correct. Cassanelli: My -- my I guess take on it right up front is I don't -- I have got questions about the transition into the property to the north, everything around it, I don't -- I'd like to see -- personally I'd like to see a little bit easier transition. I -- the R-8 up against R-4, looking at the future traffic of -- of Lake Hazel I -- I get that. I understand that argument. I just -- so, you know, the way it sits currently my concerns with it are the transit and it just not fitting completely into what's around it. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have got a question for staff. In the notes it mentions, though, in that area that it's not flat, it's not level, there is a change in the topography between the homes in Black Rock and the homes in phase one. Is that right? Is that going to offset some of that feeling -- like the backyards aren't going to just be -- you know, it's not going to be just a single fence between the front yard, backyards of those homes, it's going to -- there is going to be an offset on the ground; is that right? Beach: Let me see if I can demonstrate that a little bit for you. You saw some of the photographs that were in Mr. Conger's presentation. I'm going to try to use Google Earth to my advantage here, so we can see kind of what we are working with. This is -- this is Cyanite here. It is a little difficult to see the topography, but there is a lot of change in the topography in that specific piece of property that Mr. Conger indicated. There is some -- you can kind of see over in this area, but it's -- there is not a road, so I can't zoom in very well and have you see what's going on. But there is -- you can kind of see that there is some significant topographical changes there, which is why going back to the plat -- which is why they have -- you can kind of see the topographical lines a little bit better on this. So, you can see the grade change here with these -- with these lines. So, you have the -- the irrigation ditch does drop quite a bit. I'm not sure how far back here -- the 64 feet, but it's 24 feet down to the bottom, kind of on this southern side towards Lake Hazel. So, I understand the reason why they are not, you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 42 of 57 know, filling all this in as it would take a lot of fill to get that level if they were to build on any of this property and it's probably just not financially feasible to do so. But, yes, it does -- the elevation does increase as you get into this northwest corner up to the Black Rock Subdivision. So, if you have ever driven out there coming up Eagle off of Taconic up to Black Rock, you definitely go up a hill to get up there. It's kind of one of the only areas over in that -- in the city where there is as much elevation. So, yes, to answer your question there is a significant amount of change and as you have driven on Lake Hazel right here you can -- you realize there is a couple of hills as you're coming east towards Eagle Road -- Yearsley: Yeah. It dips right there. Beach: Yeah. Kind of another reason why I voiced that, because I go home this way every day and this area where they are wanting to put that -- I realize that ACHD didn't have the largest concern with that, but there is a lot of elevation change. It's difficult to see as you're coming over the hill down to where that common driveway is going to be right now. With the increased traffic to seven lanes it could be a little more problematic. Fitzgerald: And Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think Commissioner Cassanelli's point -- I think that's one of the reasons why I'm not as concerned about what we are talking about, is beca use the rooftops you're not going to see it. I mean it's going to have -- you're going to have a significant transition and that -- the landscape becomes part of your -- part of your transition. That's one of the things I -- I totally understand your concerns. You're falling away pretty significantly from their neighborhood and it's much like what they have down below than now in other -- in the neighborhoods that are to the northeast of them. Yearsley: And, then, I also want to address Commissioner Cassanelli's comment about everything around it is R-4. A lot of that area to the south was actually zoned -- or annexed in that big city annexation and that was the agreement that they would come in at R-4 and have the opportunity to rezone in the future when they want to develop. So, that actually could come in as R-8, you know, other types of developments to the south. So -- so, this being an R-8 is -- is not an unreasonable -- in my opinion an unreasonable request, given the location and that stuff. Yeah, it is an R-4 up against an R-8 to the north, but, you know, given where it is at Lake Hazel and what Lake Hazel is going to be , an R-8 is not an unreasonable request. Beach: I would mention one more thing. Black Rock, yes, it's zoned R-4. It is definitely not the minimum lot sizes -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 43 of 57 Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. Beach: -- you can have in the R-4. These are more like R-2. I mean these are fairly large lots. So, to say that R-4 is R-4 is R-4 may not be necessarily true. So, yes, but there are smaller lots in this proposed R-8 and -- but there is also a lot larger lots in this R-4. So, the difference could be even greater and so -- if they were both building at the minimums you could -- you could say that the difference isn't that great. But I think the reasoning why they wanted to do the R- 8 in this specific case -- and Mr. Conger can correct me if I'm wrong -- is they wanted that flexibility to go a little bit smaller than the R-4 and a little bit larger than the R-8. Yearsley: Right. Beach: So, they wanted that -- they wanted that flexibility in their lot sizes. So, R-8 seemed to fit, but some of their lots fit the R-4 standard. Yearsley: Right. Beach: So, the zoning, yes, it's there, but it doesn't necessarily give you the whole story either. McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments? Discussion? Yearsley: So, I guess before we make a motion -- so, I -- if -- whoever does -- so, the lots to the north and the east piece -- we talked about having them -- do you have conditions on those already in place that we don't have to do anything with them or what do we -- do we need to do anything with those in our motion? Beach: It depends on what you would like to do. So, the condition right now is they cannot be developed until the adjacent properties are developed, but they still have lot and block. If you would like to keep them as standalone lots to be brought back in -- with a future preliminary plat, you can do that, or you can leave them like they are. Essentially they can't do anything with them the way our conditions are written until the adjacent properties are developed and they have additional access. McCarvel: That's -- I think that's where we are at. We are okay with annexing, but those two pieces -- that northeast and the southeast corner need to remain flexible to work with the incoming -- any development that's going on around it, so we don't lock in -- because they are tight little corners anyway. Yearsley: The condition that's already there is -- is good enough that we should be okay. McCarvel: Okay. Oh, we have conditions -- Mr. Conger -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 44 of 57 Yearsley: Yeah. Beach: I will back up so you can see what they are. Yearsley: Well, I think on -- well, I will let you pull it up really quick. So, I think we agreed to not do the bottom condition and leave it not changed, but we will -- we can -- we talked about changing the first condition with the provisions that the east road be part of phase two and the -- finishing the sidewalk as part of phase three is my thoughts. Beach: I'm going to pull up the condition and have them written, too, so you can see what those are. That way there is not confusion. So, we have got covered hearing A is essentially not letting them have access to East Lake Hazel Road for that common driveway. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: And, then, 43 through 45 of Block 2, which is the southeast corner, 46 through 52, Block 1, which is the northeast corner and, then, we list what needs to happen. If you would like a change those we can. But just so you see how they are both written. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think this gives them the flexibility -- if there is a way to get that road across there. It still gives them an opportunity -- an option if he wants to. I think it's fine the way it is. McCarvel: Yeah. I would hate to see that area disturbed. I think it's -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. I agree. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Anyone? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley, you have been so excited to -- Yearsley: It's my first one in like three years. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0137 as presented in the staff report for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 45 of 57 hearing date of March 2nd, 2017, with the following conditions: That condition -- specific site condition B.1.1.1G be modified to the Lake Hazel sidewalk improvements from East Ridge Road to the west property boundary will be completed with phase two, as well as the east -- Eastridge Road will be completed as part of phase two. The sidewalk improvements along like Hazel from the East Ridge Road to the east side will be completed as part of phase three. And I believe that is the end of my motion. McCarvel: All right. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve number H - 2016-0137 with conditions. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassanelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: All right. Moving on. I will give just a second for -- Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Yearsley: Could we take a five minute break? McCarvel: Sure. We are -- yeah. Let's just do five minutes. We have got a very -- I think fairly short one, so let's reconvene in five minutes. Yearsley: Thank you. (Recess: 8:07 p.m. to 8:13 p.m.) C. Public Hearing for Sign Ordinance Text Amendment (H- 2017- 0009) by West Ada School District 1. Request: Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to Modify UDC 11-3D-8C to Allow an Increase in Background Area and Sign Height of Freestanding Signs for Multi-Family and Allowed NonResidential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 46 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. We would like to continue at this time and open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0009, sign ordinance text amendment by the West Ada School District. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Last -- I think my mike's on. I'm not used to this new technology yet, but -- here tonight to present the last project for you. The West Ada School has submitted a UDC text amendment to modify our sign ordinance. If you had a chance to look at my staff report, which I think you have, basically, currently the way the code is written -- any kind of signage within our residential districts are limited, because we want to minimize impacts to the surrounding single family development. But if you look at all of our other commercial zones and our industrial zones there are allowances to have increased signage when those types of uses front on an arterial collector roadway and so in conjunction with staff and working with the applicant and their sign representative we believe we have come up with a solution that meets their needs and also meets the community needs with this -- with this future change that we are proposing this evening. So, again, on the screen before you is what the applicant has proposed. Now, staff did look at some of those changes and we have recommended modifications to what they originally submitted with their application. So, what the applicant's doing tonight -- or what's before you this evening is, basically, any multi-family project -- any allowed non-residential use when they front on a -- an arterial collector road and they have 750 feet of linear street frontage, they are eligible to get a larger sign. Keep in mind -- I think all of us would agree technology over the years has changed. Schools are now being used for multiple events and so getting the word out to the community makes a lot of sense. So, currently, the way the code is written, the applicant -- when you're in a residential district and you're a non- residential use, like a church, a school, a daycare, your signage is capped at 50 square feet in background area -- so, that's the cabinet of your sign. And your height of your sign can't be any taller than eight feet. So, with this proposed change the applicant would be able to increase their background area from 50 square feet up to 80 square feet and increase their height from eight to fifteen feet. The standard that the applicant is proposing this evening is consistent with our L-O zone and typically our L-O zones are -- is how we transition from residential or commercial -- more intense commercial to residential. So, in looking at the applicant's proposal staff felt very comfortable with -- with what they were recommending. A lot of our churches are in our residential districts and a lot of our schools are in our residential districts and so this certainly gives them that flexibility, but it also limits the daycares and those types of uses that don't have that frontage still have to meet the sign ordinance. So, again, if you don't have this frontage requirement you don't get the increased signage. You're capped at that 50 square feet in background area and eight feet in height. So, that's one component. Now, the other thing that -- with the increase in the background area the applicant -- an applicant would have the ability to have a larger reader board or electronic reader board sign . A message -- we call it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 47 of 57 changeable copy sign. Again, that's -- that's not part of this application, but I do bring that to your attention, because 50 square feet has an impact on how big of a message board you can have. So, when you go to 80 square feet that means you're going to get a larger message board, because you have increased that background area. But, again, in the code and in all of our districts you can only have 30 percent of your background area can be that reader board sign or that changeable copy sign. So, again, I just bring that to your attention that that would allow them to get a larger reader board as well. And, then, the second change is how often -- if they do have a reader board component or that changeable copy sign, how often is that message allowed to change. Well, currently, the way it's written is that message have to have a steady -- be constant for at least one hour. So, it has to change -- it can change no more than one -- on one hour intervals. The applicant was proposing that eight second modification and that -- that eight second is really -- is more consistent with a commercial and industrial zones. So, staff was amenable to changing that. We felt maybe one hour was a little too restrictive, given the fact that high schools can have multiple events during the week and you want to get that out to the community as to what's happening at the high schools or even middle schools and so we felt there was a good compromise . We felt one hour was too much. So, let's compromise at fifteen minute intervals. I did receive written response from the applicant in agreement with those changes. So, other than what the applicant provided, staff has not received any other public testimony on this application. Again, we are recommending approval of the sign ordinance change with staff's modification before you and I will stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill, just really quickly. Is there any other -- you said you see in our -- in our rural area -- I mean our residential areas, besides churches and schools, that are going to be able to take advantage of this? Parsons: Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, it's -- it's hard to say never. Never say never, because it is going to be citywide if it does get approved. But, typically, a daycare is not going to be on a site that has 750 linear feet of street frontage. I mean that's typically what we see would be daycares, multi-family -- I don't see a multi-family development needing a tall sign with a reader board on it. Again, I think the primary users of this would be the school district and also churches. And over the years with the city I have seen where churches have come in and rezoned their property just to increase their signage and that's what we were -- our initial conversation with the school district -- we don't want you to have to go through and rezone all of the school district Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 48 of 57 properties just to increase your signage. Let's -- this seems to be the most efficient way to -- to meet them in the middle and make a change and I think -- I don't see a negative impact to the community at this point. I think there is some real positives to it. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill. So, the other things that I have questions -- the other one I can think of is maybe a city park or some sort of a park that might have that. So, take, for instance, our subdivision in Tuscany. We have a good big entrance road that has probably 750 feet of common area along the roadway. So, would that make it eligible that we could put a sign up? It's only 20 feet wide, but it's still 750 feet of common area. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a difference -- signage is defined differently in our code. One is called a free standing sign, which we are talking about this evening and, then, there is a subdivision identification sign. And so this applies to free standing signs. The situation you're talking about where you have your long common lots, you're subject to the subdivision identification signs and that has a different height and a different standard. So, this would not apply to that situation. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: Now, city park it would. A city park could get a sign on it. Yearsley: And I'm just trying to throw out a hypothetical situation that, you know, would this situation be considered, you know, as a common area be that 750 feet, because that's what I don't want is a subdivision -- they can come in and say, well, we have got 750 feet of frontage, you know, we want to put a big sign. And so that's what I wanted to make sure that that doesn't apply. Parsons: Well, it doesn't. It's a different standard and I can certainly let you know what it is if he give me a minute to -- Yearsley: I don't need it. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't -- we weren't wanting a sign, but -- but I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a way that someone could perceive this some way else. Parsons: No. It would be a different sign. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 49 of 57 Parsons: It's a subdivision identification sign and that's all under a different section of the sign ordinance. Yearsley: We get a lot of complaints about -- we need a sign so we can say what's going on in the subdivision, so -- not that we want to, but -- I know. That would be pretty cool. Electronic reader board in our subdivision. McCarvel: All right. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Cassanelli: Question. Bill, I'm spatially challenged. Do you, by chance, have any photos of like the proposed next to an existing? Parsons: The applicant did provide a copy of the sign that they wanted to put up, but I don't have anything for tonight's presentation though. Cassanelli: Okay. Kind of a follow up. As far as an electronic reader board portion of that, what's the size -- what's the proposed size limit on that? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, they would not be allowed to get a larger sign than 30 percent of the proposed background area. So, the reader board and the message itself -- the background of the sign cannot exceed 80 square feet. So, that would be all part of that. McCarvel: Why don't we move forward and have the applicant come forward. Maybe we can get some of these questions answered in the presentation. Or not. Please state your name and address for the record. Hirano: Madam Chair. Sure. Mike Hirano. Principal at Rocky Mountain High School. 5450 North Linder Road, Meridian. McCarvel: Okay. Speak right into that mike so he can get it. There you go. Hirano: Thank you very much. We are requesting the signage. The reason for this is that over the years -- I opened the school when we first got there and we have grown. We have a lot of safety issues. We have a lot of -- we are on Linder Road between Chinden and McMillan . One of the big things that came up was when parents just had a lockdown -- one of the concerns was getting information out to the patrons where to pick up kids, how to get to the school, all of that. But there was nothing there to actually submit. So, that's when we started thinking, okay, if we had a reader board we can announce we are on lock down, you can call this number, go to this site. Here is our pickup site. Here is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 50 of 57 the bus site. So, that was one of the big issues that came there. The other issues that came up was -- we have -- right by two sub -- main sub -- I mean two main subdivisions. Paramount Subdivision. We have Lochsa across the street. Yes, we have a lot of cars and it is very hard for our neighbors to get in . I know that. Trying to get into their subdivision when our kids drive -- they are high school kids and -- so, anyway, with that the signage would allow for us to give information. One of the -- one of my neighbors said, you know, if I at least knew coming home if there was a big game, because I forgot to look on your website, whatever, I would know I go in this route or go in this route into my subdivision, rather than having to drive by your school and wait in line as people come out or as people come in. He goes that would be a great way to at least know what's happened. So, that was one of the other reasons I came up. The other one that we also looked at was just letting our families know -- our own, not just the community when things are going on. When school begins. When to register. When -- when somebody is in the office. All that information is easy to get to. Yes, we do have our website, but, again, it's just that -- when they need something they want to be able to see it. So, those are the three main concerns. Being on Linder Road and having Chinden and McMillan, the speed limit is kind of fast coming down. The big issue is that being able to turn down the road and be able to see what's happening. We did look at an eight foot sign. The problem is that when you're down there in th e traffic you cannot see the sign until you're right up there. So, it's knowing what's going on at a further distance. That would be a great advantage. McMillan is the biggest one, because we did have an incidence where we had to go into what's called a soft lockdown five years ago and just knowing that, okay, we are in a soft lockdown, go here. You can contact this number, rather than everybody trying to call into the school and we are trying to keep those lines open for the police to get out and to communicate. So, those are the other issues there. So, that's why we are requesting the signage to the 15 foot level. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody have any questions for him? Okay. Any other public testimony? Christensen: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commission Members. My name is Todd Christensen. I reside at 2145 West Ditch Creek, which is inside of the Lochsa Falls neighborhood. I'm here to testify on behalf of this proposal. Specifically to reiterate some of the elements that Principal Hirano has shared. The 15 foot tall sign, from my perspective, is one that gets it up above the traffic view for when you're turning in and out of the school and the eight foot monument sign, in my opinion, would create an obstruction for visibility for entering and exiting the school. This taller sign would facilitate the larger reader board and, again, being able to give visibility for the information that's presented on the digital reader board for a much longer distance , rather than it being smaller and having to pay attention to it in a shorter period of time. The message center of being able to communicate activities I can attest to. When there is a football game or a basketball game, find a different way in and out of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 51 of 57 neighborhood or else it's a long period of time to get home. As it relates to the eight seconds or 15 minutes, that's something that I would encourage you to review. Other elements of the code are -- they are around the eight second mark. Fifteen minutes may seem like a very short period of time, but as you're driving past being able to see the information change more quickly, that may be something that could be reviewed and approved. I appreciate the question as it relates to what is something that is similar. It's my understanding that the sign that is at the Sawtooth Middle School is the 15 foot sign and I drive past that pretty regularly -- daily, actually, to be able to see the information that's at the Sawtooth school. So, in that regard we are very supportive of the opportunity to have this sign ordinance changed, not only specifically for Rocky, but also other opportunities throughout our community. Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else? Okay. And -- oh. Sure. Clare: Madam Chairman and council, my name is Tim Clare. I live at 4079 West Moon Lake Street in Meridian. I first of all want to thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion on this matter and I'm here as -- as a parent, but also as an activity booster at this Rocky Mountain School. I have had children in that high school since it opened in 2008 and it's now 2017. So, I know a little bit about the history in Rocky and I think it's important that I express myself. So, we do need a reader board sign. It's critical to allow the community and the students and the parents to know what is going on at the school in terms of sporting events and any activities whatsoever. An eight foot sign, in my opinion, is too small. It could potentially be dangerous. If you have a 15 foot sign you have a longer space in which to read the board when you're driving down Linder and I think it's a key point -- the longer the distance, the further you can see it, the easier it is to read. And, finally, it's a positive effect on the community. It will increase attendants to events at the school. It will build revenue for the school and I will tell you a quick story. I'm also involved in building the sports complex that we just got permitted from the city last week and as I was building it ten days ago, actually, from tomorrow night, 8:00 o'clock at night, the parking lot is completely full of cars and I have no idea what's going on and I have been at the school every night for the last month working on this thing. I end up calling my son and as you know seventeen-year-olds don't communicate a whole lot. Didn't know. It's Rocky Mountain-Centennial basketball game. A simple thing like a reader board just to communicate that point, drive it home to the parents, remind the kids, would be a terrific thing for our community and for our school. So, I do thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. And normally we would have the applicant come back up, but it sounds like everybody is in favor. Do you have anything else to add? Okay. All right. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 52 of 57 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. -- saved by Commissioner Fitzgerald. H-2017-0009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: I will start. I think it looks great. It looks -- I mean it's -- obviously, this is the intent of it. I mean we hope things won't go wonky and somebody tries to use it for something else, but it really reminds me of what Mountain View already has and I drive by that all the time and I use -- I do use that to know when and not when to be coming up Locust Grove and down Overland and when to go around. So, I think it's great for the whole community, not just the people at the school. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. The only think that I -- I'm not quite sure how to -- what to do with -- is the 15 minute interval. At 15 minutes you're really only be able to see one event at a time and do we want to maybe make that -- McCarvel: I like the eight seconds. Yearsley: -- more so you can see more what's going on in the end of time and I understand the intent of the 15 minutes, but I -- but you're not going to get a lot to be able to see much in that 15 minutes, so -- McCarvel: No. Because there can be -- I agree there can be several things going on during the week and you want to be able to pass that by. I think the intent is to not have, you know, the flashing, constantly changing in the residential, but I think if you used it as the message provider -- I mean even bill boards and stuff like that when you're stopped at a red light, those change and you see two or three different ads while you're sitting there, so -- Yearsley: So -- and maybe eight seconds is enough, maybe do 15 seconds to kind of get a little longer. I don't know what -- what people's -- what everyone's thought is. Perreault: Madam Chair, I completely agree. And it sounds like the school wants to use it as a source of revenue for ads. So, if it's 15 minutes that significantly decreases their ability to -- to sell those ads. If they have more opportunity to flash that multiple times during the day, during peak hours and whatnot versus it just staying there for a certain amount of time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 53 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? If they are going to use the -- the reader board portion for advertising -- I mean, then, we are starting -- we are talking about a billboard -- McCarvel: Right. Cassanelli: -- and not a message board. McCarvel: I -- and maybe I was wrong. I had assumed that the advertising was more like what's shown here in this picture, that it's just more of the stationary. But I guess, you know, if we approve it could be used either way I guess. Yearsley: And I guess that might be something to just clarify. Was that the intent is to do ads or was it just to display their events? McCarvel: Or once we approve this do we have any say in what is on the reader board? I wouldn't think so. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we don't -- we regulate size, not content, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: So, I guess that doesn't matter. McCarvel: No. Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. FitzgeraId: And I -- I tend to agree with what has been said already. I think the sign looks great. I think it's, obviously, a needed -- a change is needed and I think 15 minutes is way too long for informational purposes, so -- I'm not sure if eight seconds -- if that becomes -- if we are -- and the sign is sideways to the road, so it's not flashing at Lochsa or to Paramount. Maybe -- I'm good with trying something -- 15 or 20 seconds if that's -- something that's a little bit more reasonable to change when someone is sitting there, if they were. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 54 of 57 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: The sign looks good and I like the sign, but I guess we got to look at not just the sign for Rocky, but -- McCarvel: Right. Cassanelli: -- a sign coming up two years from now that might be facing ou tward and, you know, blinding somebody throughout the night with a flashing -- I'm a Seinfeld fan and I am getting flashbacks to an episode, the chicken neo n sign and if it's constantly revolving I think it's -- you know, it may -- as soon as it gets dark I mean that's what you're going to see. I like the -- I like what I'm seeing. Thirty seconds -- 60 may be a compromise where it's not going crazy and, obviously, we can't regulate the -- you know, we can't regulate the content -- McCarvel: Can we regulate hours of light? Yes, we are looking at you, Bill. Parsons: Yeah. I see that. I'm reading through the code real quick to get myself up to speed on all the other sections. Madam Chair Person, Members of the Commission, certainly it's something that you can add into the code that does -- what -- what the electronic reader board says -- there is really a lot of flexibility on how bright -- how dim or how bright these can be, how they operate. They can be shut off at night and reprogram to come on between certain hours. This certainly is something that we discussed with the applicant, but it's going to be -- one thing we have to think about when we think about code changes is they are going impact other departments. Our code enforcement. Are they going to -- are they going to be out there with people complaining -- now, I am looking through the code and there are some -- so, this has to do with residential districts, but there is also just a general section of the code that speaks to sign age and it speaks to free-standing signs when it abuts a residential district and it says here that illuminated free-standing signs shall be -- illuminated free-standing sign not in the required street landscape -- landscape buffer shall be less than eight feet in height and shall be located greater than a hundred feet from any residential district. Certainly that was our concern when I did the staff report is typically we are not going to see a sign that parallels the road; right? It's going to be perpendicular to the road so you can see the sign. So, in a particular case a sign would never abut -- technically speaking -- well, Paramount -- I don't know of any schools where the people's backyards -- I guess there is a few subdivisions where some of the homes -- lots back up to the school district's property, but you never put a sign there. The sign is going to be along the road. So, certainly, if you want us to craft some language and put it in there when you're in a residential district the sign has to be turned off -- McCarvel: Or at least dimmed -- there is a lot of controls on those. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 55 of 57 Parsons: In our code we don't want flashing lights -- I mean it's certain things -- it can't be strobing. The intent is you just don't want to see a bright sign just like laser light shows -- McCarvel: In somebody's living room window. Yeah. Parsons: That's correct. So, it can't be blinking, it can't be strobing, and it can't be flashing. So, that’s already in our code. It's just whether or not you want them to turn it off at night or -- and come on a dawn -- dusk to dawn or whatever it's going to be. I don't know. 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. they can operate -- McCarvel: I wouldn't think they need to be tuned off. Maybe dimmed. Yearsley: And, Madam Chair, as we talked it -- really we are only talking, more than likely, for this -- for this application we are talking schools, maybe a church or a park. So, I don't think we are looking at a potential -- pretty limited type usage for this particular area of a sign. You know, we have different conditions for a commercial area or a -- anything that -- L-O or not L-O. Industrial area. Sorry. You know. So, I think with that -- you know, I don't know if that's -- so, my thinking is a school and a church you're going to be trying to be neighborhood friendly, so they may not be that way, so -- I don't know. I don't think that that's as big an issue. Parsons: Members of the Commission, I think this school district -- has always been a great partner to the community. I believe if the residents had concerns and they went to the school and said, hey, can you dim the sign down, can you work with us, I think there is an opportunity for those discussions to be had outside of trying to write some kind of code to protect every situation. It's like just be a good neighbor. I mean that's sometimes it's -- that's the best policy. Fitzgerald: Do we have a time frame -- Madam Chair? Do we have a time frame in regards to timing of -- spinning of the sign -- changing of the sign? McCarvel: I don't know that we really came to a consensus on that. I mean we have had eight seconds, we have got 15 minutes, we have got a minute -- Yearsley: I would think -- you know, even at a minute you're going to be through that area within a minute. I was thinking maybe 15 seconds. McCarvel: Fifteen seconds. Okay. Yearsley: Was my thought. But I guess whoever makes the motion gets to make that decision. Fitzgerald: See if we can come to consensus. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 Page 56 of 57 McCarvel: Okay. All right. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have any thoughts in regards to flashing? Cassanelli: I guess -- I'm going to point this one back to the applicant. Would -- if you had a choice of how fast it -- you know, in this application what would you like to see? Yearsley: He's not allowed to -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. We would have to open the public hearing again. Cassanelli: Okay. What is it right now -- I'm not looking at -- can you go back to the -- to that slide? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the eight seconds is consistent with all the other language. That's why Virginia had proposed it that way. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: So, if you're comfortable with leaving it consistent with other sections we can do that, too. Cassanelli: I would be good with 15 seconds. McCarvel: Yeah. Eight seconds. Yeah. Cassanelli: I think eight seconds is a little too quick for a residential area. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Go 15? Cassanelli: I'd go for -- I'm fine with 15. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. I think we are all in -- have somewhat of a consensus. Anybody like to make a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-017-0009, as presented in Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 2, 2017 Item #4A: Rainier Villas Vicinity/Zoning & Aerial Maps Rainier Villas Site Plan Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Item #4C: Sign Ordinance Text Amendment Staff’s Recommended Change d. Changeable copy signs proposed as freestanding signs are allowed. In addition to the standards set forth in subsection A12 of this section, all changeable copy freestanding signs shall meet the following standards: (1) Any changeable copy freestanding sign visible from a public street shall be programmed as follows: All displays, including, but not limited to, graphics, letters, numbers, color and/or brightness shall remain unchanged for a minimum of one hour eight (8) seconds fifteen (15) minute intervals, except that any text messages that are longer than the display area and do not contain any gra phics may scroll in a consistent and predictable manner. (2) Only one changeable copy sign proposed as a freestanding sign s hall be allowed per property. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2017-0001 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of Thirty-Two (32) Dwelling Units on 2.45 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for Verraso Village, by Chad Olsen. Case No(s). H-2017-0001 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 16, 2017 (Findings on March 2, 2017) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2017-0001 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017 EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: February 16, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Verraso Village No. 3 – CUP (H-2017-0001) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Chad Olsen, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 32 dwelling units on 2.45 acres of land in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. This is the third phase of development for Verraso Village. See Section VIII, Analysis, for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 16, 2017. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chad Olsen ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Chad Olsen v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) I further recommend Staff to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law & Order for the hearing date of March 2, 2017. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0001, as presented during the hearing on February 16, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 2 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located south of E. Ustick Road on the west side of N. Records Avenue at 3025 and 2975 N. Records Ave., in the northwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. B. Applicant: Chad Olsen 12790 W. Telemark Street Boise, ID 83713 C. Owner: Una Mas, LLC 1717 E. Chisholm Drive Nampa, ID 83687 D. Representative: Same as applicant E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit which requires a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: January 27, 2017 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2017 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6, 2017 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) & Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G South: Multi-family (Verasso No. 1), zoned C-G East: Single-family rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County West: Commercial development (Gold’s Gym and Rosauers), zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions:  The subject property was annexed (AZ-05-061, Ord. #06-1251) in 2005 with a C-G zoning district. A development agreement was recorded as a provision of annexation (Instrument No. 106137048).  A preliminary plat (PP-08-007) was approved in 2008 for Una Mas Subdivision. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 3  A final plat (FP-09-002) was approved in 2009 for Una Mas Subdivision and was later recorded in 2011 (Bk. 103, Pg. 13894). The subject property was included in the plat as Lots 8-10 and the norther portion of Lots 11-13, Block 1. A modification to the final plat (MFP- 11-002, Affidavit #111057681) was approved in 2011, which allowed a shared access for Lots 8 and 13, Block 1 via Records Avenue and others as approved specifically by the City and ACHD.  A modification to the development agreement (H-2015-0016, Inst. #2016-106279) for Una Mas subdivision was approved by City Council in 2015 that removed the requirement for future structures within the development to comply with the building elevations previously approved by Council with the annexation and only requires future buildings to obtain design review approval.  Another modification to the development agreement (H-2016-0132) for Una Mas subdivision was approved by City Council on January 17, 2017 that allowed a reduced buffer width from 25 feet to 5 feet on the C-G zoned property to residential uses for the property to the north of the subject property with an additional 5 feet being provided along the north boundary of the subject property. The modified DA has not yet been signed and recorded; the Applicant plans to execute the agreement after the subject CUP application has been approved.  A property boundary adjustment (A-2016-0287, ROS #10612) was approved in 2016 that reconfigured the southern boundary of this property. D. Utilities: Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to serve the subject site exists directly to the south in the un-named common drive. Location of water: A water main intended to serve the subject site exists directly to the east in N. Records Avenue. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no open ditches that cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any hazards that may exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or flood way. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This site is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Fox example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the developments. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 of the Comprehensive Plan. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 4 This site is proposed to develop with medium high-density residential uses at a gross density of 13.06 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). The proposed development consists of 32 dwelling units constructed in sets of two attached units on 2.45 acres of land. The proposed use should contribute to the mix of housing opportunities in this area adjacent to retail, employment and restaurant uses near major intersections (Eagle & Ustick Roads and Eagle & Fairview Roads), consistent with the plan for MU-R designated areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B, pg. 56) The future development consists of essentially single-family attached units in groups of two constructed as a multi-family development with a shared common area and amenities. However, the units are not on individual lots so it is considered a multi-family project. The residential dwellings, which all contain 3 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms, should contribute to the variety of rental options available within the City.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F, pg. 45) City services will be provided and extended with development of this site.  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.) A 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required along N. Records Avenue, a collector street.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F, pg. 53) The proposed residential units should be compatible with existing rural residential properties to the east across N. Records Avenue; there is existing and future commercial (C-G allowed) uses to the west and north and previous phases of this development to the south.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The applicant proposes one new driveway access via N. Records Avenue, a collector street, for access to the units proposed on the north side of the mew. Because local street access is not available, staff is supportive of the proposed access as is ACHD, provided the existing driveway/curb cut is removed.  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) There are pedestrian pathways depicted on the site plan through the mew for access to each unit and connection to the sidewalk along N. Records Avenue. Staff recommends a pedestrian connection is provided to the commercial development to the west.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02, pg. 55) The proposed medium high-density development is located near major access thoroughfares [N. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) and E. Ustick Road & E. Fairview Ave. (both arterial streets)] EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 5 and is within walking distance of Kleiner Park, a 60 acre City park, and The Village at Meridian shopping center to the south. VIII. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP): A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family development in the C-G zoning district in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-2. The development is proposed to consist of (32) 3-bedroom/3.5 bath residential dwellings on 2.45 acres of land. The residences will be constructed as attached units in sets of 2 with shared common area and amenities. The subject property consists of 5 building lots (Lots 8-13, Block 1) in Una Mas Subdivision. Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows:  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Floor plans were submitted that depict a 4.5-foot wide x 18-foot long private patio for each unit which demonstrates compliance with this requirement.  Development with 20 units or more are required to provide a property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The property management and leasing office and maintenance storage area is located within the first phase of development to the south of this site and will also serve Phase 2 and Phase 3. One mailbox is proposed centrally within the site along the north boundary of the site, and an address sign is depicted on the site plan at each of the entries off N. Records Avenue.  At a minimum, 350 s.f. of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units (32) contain over 1,800 square feet of living area; therefore, a minimum of 11,200 square feet of common open space is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C. The applicant proposes 18,259 s.f. of common open space consisting of the courtyard (mew), 20’ x 240’ common area along the west boundary which also doubles as an emergency access, drainage and utilities easement, and the street buffer along the collector street (N. Records Avenue).  For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three (3) amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D.1. A total of 32 units are proposed, which requires a minimum of 3 amenities to be provided. The applicant proposes a walkway through the mew with connections to each unit; and 8 fountains within the mew – one in front of each of the structures, which qualify as open space and recreation amenities. A clubhouse/meeting area with a veranda, which qualifies as a quality of life amenity, is being provided with the first phase of development and will also serve this phase. These amenities satisfy this requirement.  The architectural character of the structures shall comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. The proposed elevations provide articulation and variety through varying roof planes, windows, and offset walls. The main entrances to the units are designed as a focal point with overhead weather protection. A variety of sloped roof forms are proposed for interest from the street. Exterior building materials are proposed to consist primarily of EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 6 stucco with cement board siding accents and metal or composition shingle roofing which conveys permanence and durability. The facades of the structures facing the mew incorporate a lot of windows. Overall, the architectural character of the proposed structures complies with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All roof and wall mounted mechanical, electrical, communications and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties. The design of all structures on the site are subject to the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual and will be reviewed with the Design Review application(s).  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. Landscaping is required in accord with this requirement and shall be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Dimensional Standards: The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and for multi-family developments listed in 11-4-3-27. The setbacks for the C-G district are 0; however, the 20-foot required street buffer along Records Way will serve as a setback on the east side of the development. UDC 11-4-3-27B.1 requires a minimum building setback of 10 feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and found it in compliance with the aforementioned standards. Access: Access is depicted on the site plan to each structure on the south side of the mew from a private driveway via N. Records Avenue approved with the 2nd phase of development. Another driveway via N. Records Avenue is proposed along the north boundary of the site for access to each of the units on the north side of the mew with this application. As access to a local street is not available, staff is in support of the proposed driveway connection to Records, a collector street. An emergency access driveway with grass-crete is proposed within the common area along the west side of the development for access between the driveways. Note: As part of ACHD’s approvals for The Village at Meridian project, the developer (CenterCal) was required to construct Records Avenue from E. River Valley Street to its current terminus at the south boundary of Una Mas subdivision with development of Phase III of the Village. Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Based on these standards, a total of 32 covered and 32 uncovered spaces are required. Two-bay garages with associated 2- space 20’ x 20’ parking pads are proposed for each of the units. The proposed site plan complies with UDC standards for parking. One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on a total of 128 proposed parking spaces, a minimum of 5 bicycle EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 7 parking spaces should be provided for the development. There is one bicycle rack depicted on the site plan at the northeast corner of the site which should be able to park a minimum of 5 bicycles. Multi-Use Pathway: There is not a multi-use pathway designated on this site in the Master Pathways Plan. Landscaping: A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required along N. Records Avenue, a collector street, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 20-foot wide utilities easement exists along Records Avenue. If trees are not allowed within the easement, a minimum 5-foot wide buffer is required outside of the easement for the required trees (staff is unable to determine if bushes or trees are depicted on the plan). Trees (1 per 35 lineal feet) are required within the 5-foot wide buffer along the north boundary of the site that borders the driveway that provides access for the homes on the north side of the mew in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. Common Open Space & Site Amenities: Because this site is below 5 acres in size and in a commercial district, the open space and site amenity requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3 are not applicable. However, common open space and site amenities are required per the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 as noted above. Sidewalks/Pathways: A five-foot wide detached sidewalk exists on this site along N. Records Avenue in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. A pathway is proposed within the mew for pedestrian access to each of the units and connects to the sidewalk along Records Avenue. Staff recommends a pedestrian connection (gate in the fence) is provided to the commercial property to the west for interconnectivity. Lighting: Lighting is proposed within the planters in the courtyard/mew. All lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 and shall be designed so as not to trespass beyond the courtyard area and become a nuisance to adjacent dwellings. Fencing: All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A privacy fence is proposed along the west perimeter boundary of the site and a wrought iron fence is proposed at the west end of the common mew. The mew is proposed to be separated and screened from the street buffer along Records Avenue by a 5-foot tall wall with a pedestrian access gate. As noted above, a gate is recommended in the fence at the west boundary for pedestrian connectivity to the west. Waterways: There are no open waterways on this site. Building Elevations: The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for each of the 5 types of structures proposed to be constructed within the development (see Exhibit A.4). Construction materials for the structures are proposed to consist of stucco with either cement board and/or metal siding accents and metal or composition shingle roofing. Consistent with Phases 1 and 2, staff recommends all structures incorporate a minimum of 2 different material types along with stone or brick accents on the driveway facing elevations to enhance design and variety. A cohesive color scheme featuring a minimum of two field colors: a trim color and a front door color with coinciding garage door colors should also be used. Pre-fabricated steel panels should only be used as an accent material. Final design of the multi-family structures will be required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual, and the conditions listed in Exhibit B of this report. Property Boundary Adjustment (PBA): The proposed development includes only a portion of Lots 11-13, Block 1. Therefore, the applicant should submit a property boundary EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 8 adjustment application to adjust the property lines between these lots and the parcel to the south and obtain final approval prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted for approval of the new use and to ensure that all construction complies with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions contained in this report listed in Exhibit B. For multi-family projects, one overall or multiple individual CZC applications can be submitted. Design Review (DES): An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the proposed structures, per UDC 11-5B-8. Development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual or any updated provisions thereof. The DES and CZC application(s) may be submitted concurrently. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions included in Exhibit B. IX. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 10/28/16) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 10/28/16) 4. Proposed Building Elevations & Floor Plans B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 9 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !( !( !( ÚÚd RS_9306 RS_9109 RS_10582 RS_6418 RS_8965 RS_3847 RS_8953 RS_7139 RS_3475 RS_10340 RS_9624 RS_2726 RS_2355 RS_6456 RS_4126 RS_9112 RS_7139 RS_9154 RS_5787 RS_8526 RS_4489 RS_4612 RS_5493 RS_8471 RS_10340 RS_6638 RS_7139 RS_10612 RS_6456 RS_4459 RS_9174 RS_7139 RS_7409 RS_7281 RS_5287 RS_9983 R-4 R1 R-8 RUT R-8 RUT R-8 R-4 R-2 R-15 C-G RUT RUT L-O R-2 R1 R-8R-40 R1R-4 RUT C-N R1 R-2 C-G C-C R1 R-2 R-8 R1 C-C R1 RUT N E A G L E R D E USTICK RD W PALM ST N S H A R O N A V E E ARCH DRE PICARD ST E TAHITI DR N T W E E D B R O O K A V E EBOURBONST N D U A N E DR E BOURBON L N E PICA R D L N N S H A R O N A V E N B E T U L A P L E SPEARFISH DR E CHANDLER ST N W A L L I N G F O R D A V E E LESLIE DR E RACE CT E G R A N G E R D R N B O T T L E B R U S H A V E E RACE ST N R E C O R D S A V E N B E T U L A A V E N R E C O R D S W A Y E C O N K L I N D R E RIVER VALLEY ST E SEVILLE LN E TECATE LN E MODELO LN N CENTR E P O I N T WAY N B E T U L A A V E N L A N C E R A V E N D U A N E D R E PALM ST E TAHITI ST N V I L L E R E L N EGRANGER AVE N S H A R O N A V E N G R E N A D I E R W A YN C A J U N L N N L A N C E R A V E N B E T U L A A V E N C H A T T E R T O N A V E N S T O K E S B E R R Y P L N LEBLANC WA Y Kleiner Park The Village SITE EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 10 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 10/28/16) EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 11 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 10/28/16) EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 12 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations & Floor Plans EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 13 EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 14 EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 15 B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations and materials included in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval listed herein, the provisions of the development agreement (Inst. #106137048) and amended development agreements (H-2015-0016, Inst. #2016-106279; H-2016-0132). 1.1.2 Exterior building materials shall include a minimum of 2 different material types; additionally, stone or brick accents shall be included on driveway facing elevations to enhance design and variety. A cohesive color scheme featuring a minimum of two field colors: a trim color and a front door color with coinciding garage door colors should be used. Pre-fabricated steel panels should only be used as an accent material unless otherwise approved through alternative compliance (see UDC 11-5B-5). The architectural character of the proposed structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E and 11-3A-19, and the guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual (see pages 119-139) or any updated provisions thereof. 1.1.3 The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. All roof and wall mounted mechanical, electrical, communications and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties. The design of all structures on the site are subject to the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual and will be reviewed with the Design Review application(s). b. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1.1.4 The developer shall obtain final approval of a property boundary adjustment application to adjust the property lines between Lots 11-13, Block 1 and the parcel to the south prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site. 1.1.5 The amended development agreement (H-2016-0132) shall be signed by the developer and submitted to the City for approval by Council and recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this development. 11.6 Any fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-7 and 11-3A-6B. 1.1.7 The applicant shall provide amenities as proposed with this application in accord with UDC 11- 3G-3, including a clubhouse/meeting area within the office structure with a veranda in phase 1, a courtyard/plaza (mew) with pedestrian walkways through the center to each unit, and fountains. The courtyard/plaza (mew) shall be constructed concurrently with the adjacent dwellings. 1.1.8 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.1.9 Off-street vehicle parking shall be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11 -3C-6 for multi-family dwellings as proposed on the site plan included in Exhibit A. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 16 1.1. 10 The site plan included in Exhibit A.2 shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a gate in the privacy fence along the west boundary of the site to provide pedestrian access and interconnectivity with the commercial property to the west. 1.1.11 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3 shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a gate in the privacy fence along the west boundary of the site to provide pedestrian access and interconnectivity with the commercial property to the west. b. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants (UDC 11-4-3-27F). c. Landscaping is required within the 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer along the north boundary of the site in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. d. Landscaping (i.e. trees) is required within the street buffer along Records Avenue outside of the easement in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. d. Depict a detail of the proposed fencing types (i.e. wrought iron and privacy fence) and wall along the east boundary of the site at the end of the mew. f. Label the wall across the east end of the mew as such. g. Depict a gate within the wrought iron fencing proposed across the west end of the mew. 1.1.12 The lighting proposed within the mew/courtyard within the planters shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 and shall be designed so as not to trespass beyond the courtyard area and become a nuisance to adjacent dwellings. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.2.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.2.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). 1.2.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.2.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.11 Bicycle parking spaces shall be consistent with the design standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 17 1.2.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.2.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Design Manual. 1.2.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed modification and/or transfer of ownership. 1.3.2 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4. 1.4.3 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and Design Review from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of building permit application(s). 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. The plan will need to include the installation of Type 1 lighting along Records Road. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.1.2 The adequacy of available fire hydrants will be evaluated during the building permit review process. In the event that it is determined that additional hydrants are necessary to provide fire protection, the applicant shall be responsible for their installation. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 18 easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-2-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.4 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.2.5 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.2.6 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.7 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.8 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.2.9 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.10 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 19 2.2.15 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation distric t or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.17 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.2.19 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed public sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comments on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the International Fire Code. 4.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 20 4.3 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.4 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.5 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 4.6 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 4.7 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 4.8 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 4.9 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.10 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway District cross section standards and have a clear driving surface. Streets less than 26’ in width shall have no on-street parking; streets less than 32’ in width shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the drivable surface dimension exclusive of shoulders. The overhead clearance shall be a minimum of 13’ 6”. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. and D103.6.1 and D103.6.2. 4.11 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 4.12 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1. 4.13 ALLEY – In all cases, right of ways shall be a minimum of 20’ in width. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty-eight foot (28’) inside and forty-eight foot (48’) outside turning radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street. The minimum distance for alley accessed properties shall be 20’ from the face of a garage to the property line. (International Fire Code Section 503.4) 4.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth in International Fire Code Section 903.2.8. 4.15 A directional sign shall be provided at the entry off of Records Avenue for addressing purposes as proposed. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services has no comment at this time on this development. EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 21 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department has no comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT A Verraso Village No. 3 - CUP (H-2017-0001) PAGE 22 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that if the site is designed in accord with the site plan in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in Exhibit B, the site will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district and the specific use standards for multi-family developments. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed multi-family development in the C-G zone meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family development will be compatible with other residential and commercial uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this staff report and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and irrigation can be made available to the subject property. Please refer to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department and other agencies. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay impact fees. EXHIBIT A 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. The Commission recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this development; however, whenever undeveloped property is developed the amount of traffic generation does increase. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Item #4: East Ridge Estates Vicinity/Zoning & Aerial Maps Preliminary Plat Common Drive for three lots Landscape Plan Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Su p p l e m e n t a l Te s t i m o n y o f B l a c k R o c k S u b d i v i s i o n H o m e O w n e r s Re : A p p l i c a t i o n f o r P l a t A p p r o v a l a n d Z o n i n g o f E a s t R i d g e E s t a t e s S u b d i v i s i o n Th u r s d a y , M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 Da w n M u r p h y Bl a c k r o c k Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n E x a m p l e o f L o w D e n s i t y – Z o n e 2 / 4 Up t o 3 d w e l l i n g s p e r a c r e Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n e x a m p l e o f Z o n e - 4 / 8 Ra n g e o f 4 t o 8 d w e l l i n g s / a c e Sk y M e s a A m e n i t i e s Bl a c k R o c k F e n c i n g Wa t e r C o n c e r n s Su m m a r y : 1. R 4 2. P l a t n o t a p p r o v e d a s d e s i g n e d t o d a y : • Am e n i t i e s • La n d s c a p i n g ( F e n c i n g ) • Lo t s i z e s a n d p l a c e m e n t o f a 5 - s p u r d r i v e w a y a g a i n st t h e B l a c k R o c k ne i g h b o r h o o d 3. W a t e r C o n c e r n s 4. U s i n g B l a c k R o c k a s a c o n s t r u c t i o n e n t r a n c e w i t h o u t d e v e l o p i n g t h e Ea s t R i d g e E s t a t e s s u b d i v i s i o n e n t r a n c e o f f L a k e H a ze l EAST RIDGE ESTATES RIPARIAN AREA Lake Hazel Road Riparian Walk Path RIPARIAN AREA WALKING PATHWAY LOOP SOCIAL GATHERING AREA BLACKROCK PROPERTY BOUNDARY BLACKROCK INTERCONNECTIVITY EXISTING STUB ROAD FROM BLACKROCK TO EAST RIDGE ESTATES SECOND WESTERN STUB LAKE HAZEL IMPROVEMENTS Modify condition: Lake Hazel Sidewalk Improvements from East Ridge Road to the west property boundary will be completed with Phase 2 of the Development. COMMON DRIVE – EXISTING FEATURES Lake Hazel Road 0 -24 Riparian Walk Path 0 -64 CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT Common drive with cross access easement for future development. COMMON DRIVE – EXISTING FEATURES Lake Hazel Road 0 -24 Riparian Walk Path 0 -64 EAST RIDGE ESTATES THANK YOU Changes to Staff Recommendations Site Specific Condition B.1.1.1 g. Modify condition to state: Lake Hazel Sidewalk Improvements from East Ridge Road to the west property boundary will be completed with Phase 2 of Development.  Site Specific Condition B.1.1.1 c.1. Modify condition to state: Lots 43-45 of Block 1 common driveway shall have a cross access easement in favor of the adjacent parcel. MERIDIAN ZONING/ANNEXATION AREA MAP PATHWAY AMENITIES 77 ACRE REGIONAL PARK TYPICAL SECTION WESTERN NEIGHBOR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS NORTHEAST CORNER COMMON DRIVE UDC 11-3A-3: Access to Streets: The following standards shall apply unless otherwise waived by city council. The intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets City staff Pre-Application Meetings – staff original condition thoughts were to require this application to have a public access easement to require adjacent neighbor to use upon their future development. ACHD Staff Report: Staff supports the approval of the driveway as it meets the required site distance, it will serve only 3 single family lots (estimated 30 ADT and 3 trips in the PM peak hour) and it meets the site distance requirements. VICINITY MAP SITE DISTANCES Thompson Engineers January 4, 2017 Traffic Impact Study