Loading...
2017 07-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 6, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 6, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present:, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassanelli and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Treg Bernt. Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance ______ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli _______ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to -- at this time I'd like to call the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of July 6th -- 6th? Yes. And let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I don't think there are any changes, so can I get a motion? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the agenda as presented. Cassanelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 2 of 69 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval for Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) by Blood, LLC Located 2560 S. Meridian Road C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval for Raisin' Angels Daycare (H-2017-0072) by Neudesign Architecture, LLC Located 143 W. Archerfield D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval for Northpointe Retail Drive-Through (H-2017-0074) by Slichter/Ugrin Architecture Located 1750 W. McMillan Road Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of Speedy Quick, Raisin' Ange ls Daycare and Northpoint Retail Drive-thru and if there are no comments or additions to that or the minutes from the last meeting, I would entertain a motion as well. Cassanelli: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I'd like to briefly explain to our audience -- we have a decent crowd tonight -- the process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report on their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of the application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished their presentation we will open it to public testimony and, then, give the applicant a chance to come up and close for another ten minutes. Hopefully, you have had a chance to sign up in the back. Please if you would like to testify, please, signify that on the -- on the sign-up sheets in the back. Any person wishing to testify can come forward and they will be allowed to speak for three minutes. If you are speaking on behalf of an HOA, you will have ten minutes to speak, but we will need a show of hands for people that you are speaking for, so you won't have an opportunity to speak if you're speaking for a group. So, they will get ten minutes if they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 3 of 69 speaking for an HOA. After all testimony has been heard, again, we give the applicant a chance to come up and to respond to those that have made comments and, then, we will close the public hearing and, then, the Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate . And so with that we are looking forward to an eventful evening. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2017 for Kingsbridge North Subdivision (H-2017-0065) by Jarron Langston Located 3475 E. Falcon Drive 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.07 Acres of Land with an R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ten (10) Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Area Lots on 5.05 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District Fitzgerald: And I will turn it over to Sonya. Do you want to kick this thing off? Allen: Yes, Chairman. All right. The first item on the agenda tonight is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat for Kingsbridge North Subdivision. This site consists of 5.6 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 3475 East Falcon Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north, west and south are single family residential property, all zoned R-4. And to the east are rural residential properties in Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County. In 1974 this property was platted as Lot 7 in Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision. A record of survey was recorded in 2015 that slightly reconfigured this property as shown. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 5.06 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district, consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of ten single family residential building lots and two common lots. The minimum property size is 16,409 square feet, with an average lot size of 18,731 square feet. A gross density of 1.9 units per acre is proposed consistent with the low density residential future land use designation. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. There is an existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on Lot 17 at the end of the East Falcon Drive cul-de-sac and you can see that footprint right here on this left drawing where my arrow is. Access for the development is proposed via an existing stub street, South Lyford Avenue and that is here at the south boundary of the site. Access for the existing home will remain via Falcon Drive. A 20 foot wide common lot, with a ten foot wide Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 4 of 69 emergency access only driveway is proposed via Falcon Drive to South Lyford and that is in this location here from the cul-de-sac, which will connect to this street here. Because all lots exceed 16,000 square feet, a minimum of five percent qualified open space, rather than ten, is required to be provided within this development. There are areas where the pathways are proposed to the west and east sides of the development and parkways along internal streets . Two micropaths are proposed as amenities. So, the path -- the common lots of the pathways are proposed right here and to the east right here . The McDonald Lateral runs along the east and north boundaries of the site within an easement ranging from 15 to 30 feet in width, as depicted on the plat. And that is -- you can see my arrow here, where ever that dotted line is right along here. The lateral is proposed to be relocated and piped along the rear lot lines of Lots 12, 13 and 15. The UDC requires irrigation easements wider than ten feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise modified by Council at a public hearing. The applicant is requesting Council approval for the easement to be located within adjacent building lots as depicted on the plat. Staff is in support of this request, because requiring the easement within a common lot would create an open space corridor area behind the building lots that is unable to be seen from the internal street it could cause safety issues. Conceptual renderings have been submitted for this development as shown that represent what future homes will look like. Written testimony has been received from Jarron Langston, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the modifications per the Fire Department as follows: Modification to condition number 1.1.2K, 1.1.3H and 4.4 to modify the width requirement for the emergency access driveway on Lot 9 from 20 feet to a minimum of 12 feet, with a minimum five foot wide landscape strip on each side, for a total of 22 feet minimum. And a change to condition number 4.5 to require bollards instead of a gate across the emergency access driveway to facilitate pedestrian access and that is for this lot right here that you see. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner, go right ahead, sir. Yearsley: Thank you. Sonya, on that pathway going to the west, that common lot -- they are having to walk through the common lot. Is that typically done? I have not seen that before, that's why I was just bringing that up. Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, are you talking about this little area right here? Yearsley: Well, I was actually talking about the driveway on the other end of that pathway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 5 of 69 Allen: Oh. It's not typical, no. But they are going to do an easement across that common lot, which serves as a common driveway for Lots 8 and 10 here, this lot and this lot. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: So, it will -- it can work, yes. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Cassanelli: Question. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I have a question on the conditions of raising the drive from 20 foot to basically 22 foot by adding that -- so, I guess the reasoning behind the extra two feet -- intent of that being landscape? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassanelli, it's actually a reduction. Typically, the Fire Department requires a 20 foot wide driveway -- paved surface to drive on. They have agreed to reduce that down to 12 feet. Five foot landscaping is still required on each side of the pathway. So, instead of a 30 foot common area lot, they are asking to reduce that down to a minimum of 22. Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Would the applicant like to come forward and present -- make their presentation? Please state your name and address for the record, Good Senator. Lakey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just Todd Lakey with Borton-Lakey Law this evening, Mr. Chairman. Here on behalf of the applicant and I guess I will be brief, Commissioners. Ms. Allen did a great job as far as the staff's analysis on this particular project. I just want to hit some of the high points, but mostly it's thank you and amen to their announcements and recommendations. It's a pretty straightforward, smaller residential development, as was shown. Ten lots, nine new ones, including the existing home. These are larger lots ranging from just over a third to just over a half. So, we are going to have larger -- lots with larger homes consistent with that similar character and quality that you have in the area with the existing development. As staff noted, it's surrounded, essentially, on three sides by city, so it's almost an in-fill development, with primarily R-4, which is, again, consistent with our project. The Comprehensive Plan map designates this as low density residential development, which is right in line with our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 6 of 69 application. That provides for up to three dwelling units per gross acre and we are at about 1.9 with our project. We will meet the open space requirements in the code through those amenities, our pathways and common lots that are shown on the plat, and that also provides that an additional amenity for connectivity to adjacent properties and the additional emergency access . With the small size of this project and the consistent nature we are not going to have any negative significant impact on existing development or the character of the area or public services that are provided. As part of our annexation we will connect to city sewer and water. The project was such a size it didn't require a traffic impact statement, but we will require -- we will comply with the requirements of ACHD. Also I want to emphasize in the record staff's recommended a development agreement on this project and we are happy to enter into a development agreement to assure the consistency and compatibility of our project. In regards to the plat, I think we hit the high points there, again, with staff. This will have pressurized irrigation that will either be maintained by our own homeowners association or if the applicant decides to join the adjacent homeowners association, participate in theirs. It's kind of up to them. There is pluses both ways. We will coordinate with the city's arborist. There are some tree mitigation issues potentially on the site. We will coordinate with the city in that regard. And will meet the city's landscape requirements. Commissioners, the annexation to rezone request complies with the Comprehensive Plan, its goals and objectives the city has in place for this area. The preliminary plat does as well. The Comprehensive Plan map designation of low density supports this application and we otherwise comply with both the subdivision and the zoning ordinance requirements. With that, Commissioners, I would respectfully ask for your approval and, again, stand for any questions, if you have any. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions for Mr. Lakey? Thank you very much. At this time I have -- which is unprecedented -- I have everybody on the list that is currently signed up in support of this, which is interesting. Do I have anybody else who wants to testify on this project or application? Seeing none -- I don't think -- Mr. Lakey, would you like to say anything additional? Lakey: Mr. Chairman, I hate to argue with myself. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Yearsley: So moved. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second . All those in favor say aye. Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 7 of 69 Fitzgerald: So, thoughts? Mr. Yearsley, you want to start us off? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, I like the -- the project. It's a good in-fill project. I like the pathways and they make sense for kids getting -- trying to get to school quicker. So, I think it's not a bad, you know, larger lot subdivision. Little easier to stomach. So, I am in -- I'm in favor of this project. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I'm in favor. I don't see any problems and, obviously, the neighbors are -- are happy. Fitzgerald: All happy. Commissioner Perreault, so you have any -- Perreault: I don't have anything to add. Fitzgerald: Okay. And I'm with you all, I think it was very well presented. I think it looks good. We don't see these very often where we have big lots out -- especially out in the -- this area of town. So, I think we are in a place where we can entertain a motion. Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I would like to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file number H-2017-0065 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6, 2017, with the following modifications: Approve for the Fire Department conditions number of 1-1 -- or, excuse me -- 1.1.2K, 1.1.3H and 4.4 to modify the access drive and condition number 4.5 to replace the gate with bollards. Perreault: Motion second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Sky Mesa (H-2017-0068) by Sky Mesa Development, LLC Located 5899 S. Eagle Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of a Total of 54.01 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (26.57 Acres) and R-8 (Medium- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 8 of 69 Density Residential) (27.44 Acres) Zoning districts in the City 2. Request: Rezone of 38.87 Acres of Land from the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District 3. Request: Rezone of 6.26 Acres of Land from the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) to the R-8 (Medium- Density Residential) Zoning District 4. Request: Rezone of 0.88 of an Acre of Land from the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District 5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 278 Single Family Residential Building Lots and 31 Common Lots on 98.35 Acres of Land in the R- 4 and R-8 Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on. I'd like to open the public hearing on H-2017- 0068, Sky Mesa. Are you taking this one, too, Sonya? Allen: I am, Chairman. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. Allen: Thank you. The next applications are a request for annexation, zoning, rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 98.35 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County and R-2 in the city, located at 5899 South Eagle Road at the northwest corner and southwest corners of South Eagle Road and East Taconic Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and south is rural residential agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east are rural residential agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County and South Eagle Road and single family residential properties in Hill Century Farm, zoned R-8. To the west are single family residential properties in Black Rock and Southern Highlands Subdivision, zoned R-4. This property was included in the subdivision plat for Black Rock Subdivision No. 1 back in 2006 under the Ada County nonfarm ordinance. In 2013 the portion of the site that lies north of East Taconic Drive was annexed with an R-2 zone and included as one large lot in the preliminary plat for the Southern Highlands development, but was not included in that development agreement. It was intended to develop in the future and it was going to be included in the development agreement at that time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which consists of approximately 56 acres of land , and allow three or fewer units per acre and medium density residential, which consists of approximately 42 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 9 of 69 acres of the site and is three to eight units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of a total of 54.01 acres of land with 26.57 acres of that zoned R-4, medium low density residential, and 27.44 acres, zoned R-8, medium density residential. A rezone of 38.87 acres of land on the north side of Taconic from R-2, low density residential, to the R-4, media low density residential zoning district. 6.26 acres of land from the R-2, low density residential, to the R-8. And .88 of an acre of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district is also proposed. A proposed zoning R-2 and R-4 and density of 2.59 and 3.12 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the future land use map designations of low density residential and medium density residential for the site and will facilitate development as proposed. Preliminary plat is proposed there on the left. It consists of 278 single family residential building lots and 31 common lots on 98.35 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. The proposed lots range in size from 5,553 square feet to 26,707 square feet, with an average lot size of 10,350 square feet. A gross overall density of 2.83 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 4.21 units per acre is proposed. The subdivision is proposed to develop in five phases. The first two phases on the north side of Taconic and three through five south of Taconic. This project is proposed to have four typical lot sizes with lot widths of 85 feet, 75, 65 and 55 feet, with the largest, widest lots consisting of two point -- excuse me -- .29 to .61 of an acre as a transition to those in Black Rock Subdivision, which is there at the southwest boundary of the subdivision and those lots consist of a half to one acre lots in Black Rock. Staff is recommending that two lots are removed from the plat next to those in Black Rock to provide more of a transition, which will result in no more than two lots backing up to a single lot in Black Rock. If you can see my pointer here, there is two lots that have three lots abutting them. This one right here and this one right here. So, staff is recommending that they lose one lot in each area to widen those lots up a little bit more. The smaller patio home lots are proposed adjacent to Eagle Road on the north and south sides of Taconic and that is this area right here. This will provide a higher density and buffer at the Taconic- Eagle collector arterial intersection. The applicant is requesting Council approval for Block 5 to exceed the maximum block length allowed in residential districts of 750 feet and it is approximately 1,000 feet due to the site being constrained by the Ten Mile Creek at the northeast corner of the site. So, we are talking about this block right here where my pointer is. The measurement starts at approximately right here and, then, goes up to the curve. There is a pathway planned on the north side of the creek, but nothing on the south. So, there is no really opportunity to put a pathway through that lot to break it up for a stub street. The length of the cul-de-sac where East Morris Trail Court stubs at the south boundary and that's the street right here -- does exceed the maximum length standard of 450 feet and must be revised. It's not too much over, but just a little bit. Access is proposed via East Taconic Street, a collector street, via South Eagle Road, because the UDC restricts access to collector and arterial streets, the proposed accesses do require Council approval. I think there was five of them. Connection to an existing stub street at the northwest corner of the site is proposed. That is this one right here. One side of the street is proposed to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 10 of 69 north and two are proposed to the south for future extension and interconnectivity. The westernmost stub street to the south does not align without approved -- or, excuse me, proposed in Eastridge Subdivision, a development currently in the hearing process to the south. And that is this stub street cul-de-sac right here. However, revisions are being made to the Eastridge plat, so it's uncertain at this time where that stub street will be or if there will be one. If proposed the developers should coordinate on the location of those streets. There are two properties that abut this site that front on Eagle Road that don't have access via a local street or from this development and they are called out on this map here. The Fulcher property and the HOT3, LLC, property. The Fulcher property is approximately 1.5 acres of land and the southern property is approximately ten and a half acres of land. Staff is recommending a driveway with an access easement is provided internally to the Fulcher property and a stub street is provided to the HOT3, LLC, property, unless the future land use map designation changes to nonresidential for that southern property, in which case a stub street isn't required, but the compliance with block length standards is required, so at a minimum a pedestrian pathway would be required and that's within this block right here. It does exceed the 750 feet UDC standard. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along South Eagle Road and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Taconic. And a ten foot wide multi-use pathway exists along the south side of Taconic within an existing buffer and is required to extend to the north boundary of the site, with in the buffer along Eagle Road. So, at its current location here it would just extend up within the buffer and eventually the pathway will continue on the north side of the creek here. The Ten Mile Creek, as I said, runs along the north boundary and will remain open and should be protected during construction. The Beasley Lateral runs through the site to the north of Taconic and is proposed to be relocated in an easement within common lots and piped. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided within this development. The applicant proposes 13.27 percent or 13.05 acres of land, consisting of half of the street buffer along Eagle, the street buffers along Taconic, eight foot wide parkways along internal local streets and internal common areas. Site amenities are proposed to consist of pedestrian pathways throughout the development, providing connectivity to open space and site amenities. A segment of the city's multi-use pathway system, a swimming pool with a clubhouse and tot lot, a picnic shelter and another tot lot in accord with UDC standards. The majority of these amenities are located within phase four of the development, which is south of Taconic here on this large open space lot. Staff recommends in the staff report that they be constructed with phase two of development. The applicant is requesting they be constructed with phase three, which is the first phase on the south side of Taconic. They state that the residents on the north side will be able to use the existi ng amenities in Southern Highlands, which does contain a pool also . Staff is amenable to this request. Because there is a significant slope at the southwest boundary of the site adjacent to the Black Rock development -- and that is this area right here where my pointer is -- staff is recommending this area be placed in a common lot and be owned and maintained by the HOA to ensure it's maintained uniformly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 11 of 69 and consistently. The slope area on the north side of Taconic was placed in the adjacent building lots with the Southern Highlands development, with a no build easement. However, complaints have been made to code enforcement that the slope area is not being consistently maintained and it has become an enforcement issue for weeds. The slope area in Reflection Ridge development was placed in common lots and seems to be working out better that way. So, that's the reason for staff's recommendation. The applicant has submitted six photos of homes that will be similar to those constructed within this de velopment and share the same character and quality of design as those in Southern Highlands Subdivision to the west north of Taconic. These photos all depict at least two different building materials and stone and brick veneer accents. Written testimony has been received from Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report and I will let the applicant go through that with you. Written testimony was also received from Andrea -- excuse me on the pronunciation of the name -- Tulasec, I believe, would like larger lots than those proposed in the R-8 district and more of a transition in lot sizes from those in Black Rock Subdivision and would like a larger berm with nice plantings along Eagle Road, similar to that in Hill Century Farm to the east and she has concerns about traffic at the Taconic-Eagle intersection. And written testimony was also received from Andrea Tulasec, concern regarding impact on traffic and quality of life in this area and concern regarding development of mul ti-family housing. No multi-family housing is proposed by the way. Staff is recommending approval with a development agreement and the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. State your name and address for the record, please, ma'am. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. We are representing the applicant on this project Hunter Homes or Sky Mesa Development, LLC. We are glad to be here this evening. We are excited that we have this project before you. Sonya -- she's rolling to my PowerPoint. Allen: Is that it, Becky? McKay: Yeah. That's it. Here is a vicinity map of the project that's before you. As you can see there is approximately 98 acres . It lies north and south of the existing mid mile collector Taconic and just west of South Eagle Road. On the east side of Eagle Road you have Hill Century Farm, which is zoned R-8 and is being developed by Brighton. To the west we have Southern Highlands, which is also a Hunter Homes project. So, Sky Mesa is technically a continuation of Hunter Homes. They have also built White Bark, which is located just north of this -- northwest on Amity. Sorry. How come it locked up, Sonya? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 12 of 69 Allen: I don't know. How about now? McKay: There is an aerial photo -- sorry. Technical difficulties. There is an aerial photo. Kind of gives you an idea. It's a little bit older and there has been quite a few homes that have been built in Century Farms just on the east side of South Eagle Road. You can see that there is an existing roundabout at Amity. Albertsons will be building there at that Amity-Eagle Road intersection. There are plans for an upgrade to the -- to the roundabout to a dual lane roundabout and, then, they will be widening Eagle Road to five lanes. At the mid mile collector Taconic, Ada County Highway District, when Hill Century Farm went through the hearing process, had indicated that they would need either a signal or a roundabout based on the volume of traffic that they would generate, since they had 675 vehicle trips per day at build out. When we started this planning process, obviously, we wanted to look at the existing Southern Highlands, Black Rock, what had been done at Hill Century Farm and one of the things that Mr. Hunter wanted to make sure is that he created a high quality , diversified residential community that would, obviously, fit within the fabric and the high quality he's already created in this particular neighborhood . We wanted lots and homes that would appeal to different home buyers. The lots in -- within Southern Highlands were all of similar size. So, he wanted us to look at providing a little bit of variety. As we see the changing of market conditions and the increasing of lot prices and home prices, we, obviously, want to be sensitive to -- that we are not pricing individuals out of the market and that we have a variety of price points and so that's what we are looking for. We came up with a draft plan and we had our neighborhood meeting. That draft plan did include a multi-family component adjacent to Eagle Road, with a proposed R-15 zone. We got a significant amount of opposition, push back to that and they said, you know, we just don't want any multi-family along Taconic. So, we went back to the drawing boards, we kind of revamped our plan, got rid of the multi-family component, so what's before you this evening is all detached, single family homes, 278 R-4 and R-8 zoning. We will have to come in and rebuild Taconic, because it is currently a substandard residential collector with approximately 24 feet of pavement and it has swales, no curb, gutter, or sidewalk, other than a ten foot wide path on the south side. So, we will upgrade that to a 36 foot back-to-back vertical curb, gutter, and, then, we will construct a five foot sidewalk on the north side. The other thing that we -- we did was -- we did have a second neighborhood meeting and brought forth this plan and said here is the changes we have made. Here is the transitional lots that we placed next to Black Rock. We were sensitive that these lot sizes start large next to Black Rock and as they radiate out they would change until they get to Eagle Road and those are where we have our 5,500 square foot lots. I also contacted -- was contacted by Mr. Scott Fulcher, who owns the out parcel. I coordinated with him on sight obscuring fencing adjacent to him, a cross-access easement, and the ability to connect to central sewer or water through a stub spur -- a cross-access in the future. I also coordinated with Sam Johnson, who owns the HOT3, LLC, him and the Thompsons. They are looking at the possibility of mini storage or possibly a multi-family component. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 13 of 69 They have not made up their mind. We indicated to them that we would provide, obviously, a sewer and water stub. If they do have a residential use, then, we would have a public street stub. If they don't, then, it wouldn't make any sense, if it's mini storage, to have a stub street. So, we are okay with staff's determination. If it goes residential, you will stub. We are fine with that. Along the south boundary we have Dan Cantrell. He is here this evening. He has asked for sight obscuring fence along our south boundary and we are in agreement with that. As far as the amenities, Mr. Hunter wanted this to mesh with the quality of the amenities that they currently have within Southern Highlands. So, we have 13.05 acres of qualified open space, which is a little over 13 percent. We have a central common area and that central common area is 2.59 acres and, then, we have a linear common area that's to the north of the Taconic, because we wanted to make sure that we had amenities both north and south. It is 1.28 acres. We will be constructing a pool facility with the third phase that will be comparable with the existing pool facility. We will have a playground on the south side, a playground on the north side. There is an existing ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the south side of Taconic . Staff has asked us to construct a ten foot multi-use pathway along the west side of Eagle Road, which we have agreed to. We will have detached sidewalks throughout most of the project, with eight foot wide residential landscape buffers. We also looked at interconnecting micropaths to make sure that we created good pedestrian interconnectivity. This is from Breckon Landscape Architects. Kind of shows you the central common area. We wanted that to make a statement along Taconic and maintain that open air feeling and so by placing our primary open space and amenity it's -- it's very accessible to all homes and it creates a nice open corridor along that Taconic Drive. This is the existing pool facility that's within Southern Highlands. As you can see it's high quality, very -- very, very beautiful facility and Mr. Hunter wants to emulate this within the Sky Mesa Project. Breckon Landscape Architects created this kind of an aerial overview of what the project would look like. So, you can kind of see how the transportation works. As Taconic we -- we wanted to align our intersection so that we didn't have a mismatch of different intersections. So, we create -- obviously maintain that nice corridor and as you can see it's very open, airy, with good separation between the different pods of homes. One of the primary concerns of the residents within the project -- the existing residence was what will that entrance look like? So, Mr. Hunter had his landscape architect prepare this rendering which shows you the significant amount of buffering. We are not just doing minimum buffering, but we are creating layered buffering along both Taconic and Eagle Road, so that it -- it feels good, it looks good and creates the same -- and maintains the same statement that it has. In fact, it's going to be enhanced beyond what it is today. This is an overview of what that primary open space will look like with the pool and the changing rooms and the open space and playground facilities . There is just another perspective rendering of what that would look like. We created this particular drawing to, obviously, demonstrate to the Commission our logic in lots. As you can see, the pink lots are our largest lots. Those are -- were width -- initially were 85 feet in width. We have since modified our plans, so the lots that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 14 of 69 back up to Sky Mesa are a minimum of one hundred feet in width and as you can see we transition from the pink, then, we go to the turquoise, those are our 75 foot wide lots, then, we go to the tan, those are our 65 foot and, then, the light yellow are our 55 foot product and so as you can see we are creating kind of a layered effect and diversity within the project. This is the slope from Sky Mesa. I went out and took these pictures. Kind of wanted to show you that they are elevated above our project. The lots that we propose adjacent to them, the shallowest lot is 150 feet in depth, and they go up to 224 feet and that is, obviously, to transition from that slope. That kind of gives you a different -- that's taken from Taconic. You can see where -- where they are elevated and, then, we are basically below that bench. This is the alternative. Staff has indicated that they want us to eliminate two lots. I believe we can, obviously, create the same effect with one lot. What you're looking at is these are lots of one hundred feet wide. If I eliminate two lots, the only thing that does is makes the lots 120 wide and these lots are already a minimum 15,000 square feet and they range all the way up to 26,707 square feet. So, you can see the square footages, that they are very large. These are the homes -- the style of homes that Hunter proposes within the project. Obviously, the quality of the homes, the architectural modulation, the different use of materials, is excellent. It has a very good curb appeal. We also created this drawing showing you how we will grade and slope . Our Lodge Trail Drive will intersect with East Taconic. Stays relatively flat and, then, the building pad areas are identified and, then, the slopes. We had -- and here is kind of a rendering from the landscape architect that shows that slow also. We have had a considerable amount of experience with slopes in the Fall Creek project. We used a lot of retaining walls. We do not have any of the slopes within a common lot. They are all within the buildable lots. We specify, obviously, how those slopes are maintained. Mr. Hunter in his CC&Rs is willing to get very detailed in those specifications on maintenance and what can and cannot be done within that slope. So, we do object to staff's recommendation of putting that as a separate common lot. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Your ordinance has no provision for it and I have never had a project that that was a requirement. Concerning traffic. Right now on Taconic there is 922 vehicle trips per day. Threshold for a local street is 1,000. So, the number of vehicle trips on the west side of Taconic is less than a local street at this time . As far as traffic mitigation, we did a traffic study. Six Mile Engineers performed that. ACHD reviewed it, they determined that the traffic mitigation -- we would need to participate in the cost of either a signal or a roundabout at Taconic and Eagle Road. As you can see, I have left a considerable amount of area there for a roundabout and we will also be required to install left and right turn lanes offsite at Amity and Marsala and this particular project will contribute almost 645,000 dollars in impact fees beyond what we contribute for the roundabout proj ect. There is an existing turn lane on Eagle Road at the entrance of Taconic and as far as safety for the elementary, ACHD has indicated this summer a HAWK pedestrian signal will be installed by West Ada School District. Fitzgerald: Becky, could you wrap it up? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 15 of 69 McKay: Yes, sir. We have a really good project. It's low density, 2.83 dwelling units per acre. As Sonya indicated, our lots range from 5,500 all the way up to 26,000, with an average of 10,350 square feet. We believe, based on the Comprehensive Plan, this is in compliance and this is a good project for this area and will provide an asset to the City of Meridian. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman. So, my one concern is Tatonic -- or -- it's a very long street with not a lot of traffic calming. Have you considered maybe like a little roundabout at the intersection near the pool to try to help slow traffic down through that area? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Councilman Yearsley, ACHD -- since that is designated as a mid-mile residential collector -- Yearsley: Uh-huh. McKay: -- typically on the collectors they don't require traffic calming. It's usually on the local streets that are excessively long and straight. There are two existing islands in Taconic, but they are located toward Eagle Road. The island adjacent to Eagle Road will be eliminated due to the roundabout construction. But the one island will remain. As far as slowing the traffic down on Taconic, I would have to defer to ACHD and whether they would want -- the problem with the roundabouts is -- you know, they bring their own problems as far as pedestrian safety issues, trucks. You know, typically on the collectors -- I did continuous collectors through Bridgetower, Lochsa Falls, those aren't any different than this. You know, they traverse through with a pretty soft meander and, you know, I think they -- they put speed limit signs, slow, you know, children at play. We do what we can. Obviously, people speed. But a collector is different than a local. Yearsley: No. And I understand that and, you know, I look at Zaldia, which is the mid mile collector just to the north of you, it has a roundabout on it and the residents still complain about people using that as a race track, so -- and my guess is this will be a much faster and much funner race track than Zaldia, so that's -- that's my concern is -- is it will be a race track. So, something to consider. The other question I had, with Council -- with the staff's recommendation to put the -- the hillside in a common lot, can you address the concerns they are having problems with on the other side of the street or do you know of -- have you heard of those complaints? Are you aware of those? McKay: I would have to defer to Chad with Hunter Homes, because he was the one that dealt with the issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 16 of 69 Yearsley: Okay. McKay: So, I do not have the details of what the problem was, how it was handled and the result. Yearsley: Okay. Hamel: Good evening. Chad Hamel. 1025 South Ridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. Vice-president Boise Hunter Homes. Commissioner Yearsley, yes, I'm aware of the slope issue and the maintenance city code -- council -- code enforcement was called out there to maintain the slope. It is clear in the CC&Rs that is the -- it's an easement in the back. It's someone's private property to go back there and do what they want back there, but the HOA does have the obligation to go back there and maintain that slope. As we all know it was a very wet winter, the sudden warm in the spring caused all that stuff to grow . Our landscaper got caught a little off guard as far as how quickly it went and residents from above called and made some complaints. We were made aware. We quickly mobilized out there and took care of it. It is on a m aintenance program now and it's something we think is important to the community to maintain a nice, even look and give the property owners the right to go and do what they want with that slope. It is part of their property and gives a little more feel, rather than a fence at the bottom and, then, a fence up on top. Kind of feels like a little trap. So, that's our desire. The CC&Rs have already been approved. We can look at modifying if there is a desire to do so. But we intend to keep it the same as the currently out there. Yearsley: And, then, just one quick question. Will this be part of the same HOA as the -- the other subdivision that's already being developed out there? Hamel: Yeah. So, the intention is for shared facilities between the two -- between the two projects. We developed Sky Mesa. It's all a continuation of the same, so there will be one HOA that will be over the whole thing. Yearsley: Perfect. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Becky or for Chad? Thank you. Okay. So, I have a number of people who have signed up to testify. We are going to stay pretty close to our three time frame and, please, keep your applause, comments, thoughts -- we have been respectful for the applicant. We are respectful for you guys to speak, too. So, please, no clapping or cheering or whatever. So, we will start -- I have got a couple people who don't want to testify. Sam Karnes, do you want to kick this thing off. Please come up and state your name and address for the record, please. Karnes: Okay. I'm Sam Karnes. I live at 5556 South Graphite Way. That's in Black Rock. And I am one of the lots that is above the slope right now in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 17 of 69 existing part of Sky Mesa and I'm the one that has called code enforcement. It's only been mowed twice in the last year and both times were after I called code enforcement. This summer it was three weeks after I called code enforcement before it was mowed. People down in Sky Mesa just don’t know whether they own that are not or they are responsible for it and right now the weeds are already, you know, up that high and it's just -- it's watered, it's full of weeds, it's not planted with anything and that's the way it is right now. As Chad said, it's in the CC&Rs that you maintain. It's not in the CC&Rs. I ask you to look at that. It does not obligate the HOA to maintain that slope. They are doing it voluntarily supposedly right now. But, you know, the weeds are already about eight inches, which is what the code says it can't be over that. They propose to mow them every five weeks, but they need mowed right now in two weeks and it's no easy job. It's not like pushing mower on a flat surface. They have to get out there with a weed eater and go up and down the slopes, it's -- it's a mess. Anyway. So, I am in support of the staff's recommendation on that totally, even if it's not going to help me. But, hopefully, the other side of it will. Anyway. Also -- well, anyway, that's probably enough of on that. The other thing I wanted to comment on was it appears right now that -- well, the intersection at Taconic and Eagle is -- is a mess right now at times and I know, one, that's not your bailiwick, can't control that, but I'm real concerned about the entrance going off to the north on Taconic off of Eagle Road. You know, there is a -- they went in and kind of paved the shoulder and put some stripes on it for a right turn lane for a short distance coming south off of Eagle. It's not very long and, of course, you got traffic on your bumper, you're turning in and there is going to be a driveway -- I mean an entrance to the neighborhood. So, having a home right -- a short distance off of Eagle, that's going to be a -- that's going to be a hazard. You know, it's already bad enough coming off that , but there is -- it's only one lane. So, if traffic is going to back up, it's going to back up onto Eagle is my concern. Anyway. So, I think that needs to be considered and somehow reconfigure that. I know I just now heard for the first time that supposedly the island is going to be taken out, but I think the entrance is right off of -- you know, where the island is right now. So, you can't -- you couldn't pass anyone turning into that -- that area. Also I just want to point out when a -- Becky I believe her name was -- was describing the size of the lots that are bordering -- that would border Black Rock in this new area, of course, the dimensions and sizes she was giving are based upon the assumption that there would be no common -- or playground or lots size. Anyway. So, thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Okay. Susan Karnes. S.Karnes: Good evening. My name is Susan Karnes. I live at 5 556 South Graphite Way, Black Rock and this evening I would like to ask your permission to speak for ten minutes on behalf of the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition, which is a grass roots alliance dedicated to representing south Meridian residents. We have liaisons and neighborhood leads in Black Rock, Century Farm, along the Lake Hazel rural corridor, Ubiano, Schaffer Hugh, Sky Mesa, Tuscany, Vantage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 18 of 69 Pointe and White Bark. The Meridian Southern Rim Coalition welcomes growth, development, and annexation in our vicinity. In the spirit of the city's Comprehensive Plan we ask that all development -- to quote the Comprehensive Plan -- recognize the identity of existing neighborhoods, enhance Meridian's quality of life for all current and future residents, and, to paraphrase, value communities and neighborhoods by enhancing the unique characteristics of each. One of our coalition objectives is to serve as a unified voice for the interest of the southern rim neighborhoods. Therefore, following neighborhood meetings regarding Sky Mesa's proposal, we conducted an e-mail survey among our several hundred e-mail members to solicit feedback and tonight my remarks reflect resident input and opinions. Regarding lot sizes, survey results demonstrate unanimous opposition to the three to one lot ratio adjacent to Black Rock. The residents stated that Boise Hunter set a fine precedent of appropriate transition in its first phase of Sky Mesa with its one-to-one ratio along Lodge Trail, abutting Black Rock lots. Residents believe the application's claim for three to one ratio doesn't reflect transition by any reasonable definition, as defined in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the coalition respectfully requests Planning and Zoning Commissioners to require a one to one and no greater than one and a half ratio of all Sky Mesa lots that abut Black Rock lots. Number two. Survey results reflect strong opposition to the patio homes and R-8 in what homeowners understood would be an R-4 development. Additionally, there is unanimous opposition to the placement of this development 's highest density homes at an intersection that is beleaguered by traffic gridlock and delays. Opposition is especially fierce, because the patio lot sizes and setbacks at the entrance to these two subdivisions present a higher density appearance that will permanently alter the firmly established semi-rural and estate appearance and identity of the Sky Mesa and Black Rock neighborhoods. The rural ambience and identity of our neighborhoods are very important to our residents . More than a few of our neighbors moved from nearby Tuscany simply to enjoy larger lots and greater setbacks. The siting of patio homes at the entrance does not enhance our neighborhood identity as encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the streets into the patio home section are so close to the Taconic - Eagle intersection they will exacerbate traffic congestion during the rush and school hours. We understand that traffic falls under ACHD purview. However, I ask you to be sensitive to the situation . Developments that are underway or pending in our immediate vicinity include White Bark, Century Farm, the current phase of Sky Mesa, the Forensic Plaza at Eagle and Amity. That represents nearly 900 homes. I will add that staff's report does not mention another subdivision and the YMCA underway just north and east of Amity and Eagle. This application will add 278 homes for a total of 1,177. Traffic generated by the Albertsons is estimated to add thousands of vehicles to roads in our area. Our neighborhood schools are crowded. The West Ada School District advised the city clerk in a letter regarding this application that due to high -- high local neighborhood enrollment, new residents of this phase of Sky Mesa cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood schools. It may be necessary to bus students to available classrooms across the district. That adds more buses to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 19 of 69 the mess. Significant road projects will soon be underway. In addition to Boise Hunter rebuilding Taconic, ACHD has plans to widen the Eagle and Amity traffic circle to a two lane roundabout. They have plans to install a single lane roundabout at Eagle and Taconic, as well as a pedestrian crossing light and flashing school zone lights. That will add road construction to the mix to a neighborhood that only has one alternate route for egress , the aligning streets in White Bark, except ACHD also has plans to add turn lanes at White Bark's entrance on Marsala. So, back to our collector street Taconic, which will bear the brunt of buses, residential traffic, residential construction traffic and added congestion from road and roundabout construction, a 20 mile per hour school zone, a nearby shopping center and the ever growing number of residents and ACHD told me in a meeting this week they cannot widen Eagle Road south of Amity to alleviate traffic flows due to a lack of right of way. Bottom line, the coalition is well aware that the traffic study reviewed by ACHD shows acceptable vehicle traffic during 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. based on an October traffic survey. However, our traffic gridlock is at its worst during the morning school and work commute. We can sit at this intersection backing up on Taconic for ten minutes waiting to cross Eagle Road or to turn north. Given the afore-mentioned projects, we live in this neighborhood, we use these streets, we know the traffic patterns. That intersection is an unacceptable location for the four streets and numerous patio homes proposed within mere feet of it. The coalition understands the city's future land use map allows medium density in this area . Therefore, given the myriad of factors just cited, the coalition respectfully requests that the plan for the patio homes in the proposed subdivision be relocated away from Taconic and Eagle and into the northern sector of the subject property. This locates higher density housing closer to the major intersection of Eagle and Amity. It provides a more fluid transition from the larger lots in the area. It disperses traffic flow via entry further away from this congested intersection and, additionally, will preserve and enhance the semi-rural and estate identities of Sky Mesa and Black Rock, as the Comprehensive Plan encourages. Regarding green space and amenities, the current arrangement to the HOA to privately -- to maintain privately owned slopes is not satisfactory due to noncompliance with the city's code regarding weeds. We support staff's recommendation that slopes abutting Black Rock be designated common area. We ask that the development agreement clearly task the HOA with the responsibility for strict and timel y weed code compliance. It is a frightening thing to see so many fireworks go off on the Fourth of July and be surrounded by dry, tall weeds. Number two. Current homeowner state the pool parking lot in the existing Sky Mesa development is absolutely inadequate. Four spaces for the proposed clubhouse and pool will not provide enough parking for the additional homes, given the number beyond reasonable or safe walking distance. Many of our families are young, they have young children, and with four parking spaces it's difficult to walk to the pool carrying drinks, pool floats, etc. Some residents may choose to cross Taconic, a collector street, to access amenities in this new section. That creates a hazardous situation for drivers, children, pedestria ns alike, especially along a collector street. Therefore, we request that Planning and Zoning ask the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 20 of 69 developer to provide a greater allocation of parking spaces that will reasonably meet the needs of these additional homes . We also support the staff's recommendation for continuity with the regional pathway network map . Regarding sound mitigation and beautification, at the time of the last neighborhood meeting we were told that the entrance to this Sky Mesa would be, quote, unquote, a monument sign. We did not see the rendering until this evening's presentation. In that context I will tell you our survey results proved unanimous opposition to the lack of a sound mitigating berm and plantings along Eagle Road. Our survey proved almost unanimous and strong support for a statement entrance commensurate with the price point for Sky Mesa. Many residents noted in their comments it should be better than what's been done for Century Farm. Therefore, the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition asks Planning and Zoning to require revisions to the application that will, A, provide high and lushly planted berm designed for sound mitigation, which would also provide beautification along Eagle Road and to create a statement entrance that reflects Sky Mesa's brand and enhance its unique characteristics as an estate lot subdivision with semi-rural ambiance. In conclusion, to adhere to guidelines set forth by the city's Comprehensive Plan regarding transitions between density zones, recognizing identities of existing neighborhoods and enhancing the unique characteristics of each, the coalition asked for the following revisions to the application: Ratio that's no greater than one and a half to one for all Sky Mesa lots that abut Black Rock lots. The relocation of patio homes in the proposed subdivision from the Taconic and Eagle intersection into the northern sector of the subject property. That slopes abutting Black Rock be designated common area and that the development agreement clearly tasks the HOA with strict and timely weed code compliance. A greater allegation of parking spaces at the clubhouse, playground, and pool. An optimal pathway link to the regional pathway network. Strong provision for sound mitigation and beatification along Eagle Road. And a statement entrance. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. S.Karnes: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Next on list is Don Cantrell. Thank you, sir. Marcella Peterson. Jim Strew. Is that right? Please state your name and address for the record, please sir. Strew: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jim Strew. I reside at 2495 East Cyanite. That is in the Black Rock Subdivision. Mr. Chairman, I'm representing the Black Rock HOA and its president and I would request ten minutes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there -- Mr. Chairman or -- Yearsley: Point of order. Didn’t the coalition just speak on half of your -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 21 of 69 Strew: They spoke on behalf of the coalition that represents a number of other subdivisions besides Black Rock. Fitzgerald: This was brought to our attention before. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. So, other Black Rock residents understand that he's speaking on your behalf, so you're not going to be able to speak individually; is that understood? Everybody understands that? Okay. Mr. Strew, that's fine if you take your ten minutes that would be great. Thank you. Strew: I appreciate that. As I said, I am the president of the Black Rock HOA and I'm representing the homeowners association tonight. We do support the coalition and the points that Susan Karnes made. I won't dwell on the homes and the housing, the plat design. She certainly spoke to that. What I would like to talk about, however, is opposition to the rezoning request made by the applicant. And in the past years I and my fellow neighbors have been impacted significantly by residential development and what I have come to notice is the developers are coming to the Commission requesting rezoning to higher density. I was encouraged tonight by the first applicant who was satisfied with R-4 and did at 1.98 houses for gross density. The applicant for Sky Mesa indicated that they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. So, I did look this morning through the Comprehensive Plan and standing out on page one in the introduction -- and I have highlighted it here -- is to preserve some of the small town character and charm. So, small town character and charm. That's right up front. And my question for you all to think about is how does the plat for Sky Mesa that shows 278 rooftops support that concept , that vision? I don't think it does. Another tenant that I pulled from the Sky Mesa -- or, I'm sorry, from the Comprehensive Plan was looking at the history section and pulling some of the seven key community values out of there, I highlighted a couple of them. One was to enhance Meridian's quality of life for current -- and I stress current residents. As we look at higher density the quality of life cannot be improved. The next bullet point was prevent school overcrowding. Again, the applicant said they were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Clearly, as Susan had mentioned, the school situation, the overcrowding in school has not been taken into consideration. Improved transportation. We have talked at length about the transportation, the problems with transportation at Taconic -- that intersection of Taconic and Eagle. But also all the way down Eagle Road. Eagle Road north -- or south of the interstate will soon become -- and, actually, it is during morning commute, very similar to Eagle Road to the north of the interstate . And, finally, protecting Meridian's self identity. I looked, I couldn't find what it means by Meridian's self identity. So, again, the question to the Commissioner is how did the decisions to rezone impact quality of life for existing residents. And the final thing that I pulled from the -- out of the Comprehensive Plan was a definition of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 22 of 69 quality of life and livability and under livability it's the satisfaction of residents derived from their surroundings. Again, as we crowd more dense subdivisions against less dense subdivisions it impacts that livability of those current residents. So, again, question does more dense housing improve or have a positive or negative impact on the quality and livability of the current community members. A public records request was submitted and we received some detailed information -- a spreadsheet from Brian McClure and in that spreadsheet it had all of the parcels in the City of Meridian. I believe it was updated as of April 17. What I did was I pulled out that information, looking at the residential zoning and looked at the parcel count and compared the parcel count with the total. So, you can see R-4 is -- has 50 percent of all the parcels in residential, followed closely by R-8. So, between the two of them we are looking at close to 92 percent of all parcels in the City of Meridian. R-2. The request coming from the application -- applicant is to rezone R-2 to R-4. There is not much R-2 remaining. You can see it's less than one percent. And so I would request from the Commission that they look at this, consider the rezoning concepts and pull back and reject the applicant's request to rezone R-2 to R-4 and also deny the R- 8 as well. That's all I had. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Appreciate it. Let's see. Andrea -- is it Tlucek? You're good? A.J. Blott. Okay. And, then, I have Wendy Webb. Webb: Good evening. Wendy Webb. 2299 East Lodge Trail Drive. I live in Sky Mesa across the street from this -- this proposed development. I really want to tell you thank you for your thoughtfulness and your reco mmendations that staff has given already. I thought they were excellent recommendations. I'm concerned about the R-8 that seems to be popping up everywhere in southern Meridian. In the area where Reflection Ridge is there is hearings coming up for more R-8. Of course Tuscany is R-8. Century Farms is R-8. Everywhere around us we are getting more and more dense. As a mom -- I have a daughter at Hillsdale Elementary. Halfway through the school year her classroom became an overcrowded classroom and did an aide. As we have heard tonight there is a thousand homes going up that will be in this school, but we have no future schools planned. Where are all these students going to go? That's really concerning to me. I have lived out of state. My husband was in the Air Force for 25 years. One time when we lived in Texas we lived in one neighborhood and one area. The next time we came back ten years later we couldn't live there because the schools weren't good anymore, they were overcrowded, we had to move somewhere else further out and I don't want to see that happen to Meridian, Idaho. Idaho is where I'm from and I love it and I don't want to see the overcrowding happen. I can testify to the -- the Taconic raceway. The police could also testify they have been giving out a lot of speeding tickets on that road. It's really easy to go 40 or more on that road and without -- you know, it will continue to be a problem. The slope issues -- the homeowners association was supposed to take care of the slope. They were notified three weeks in advance. Did nothing. Two weeks in advance they were given another Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 23 of 69 notification. Did nothing. One week before the deadline the homeowners were given notifications that they were going to receive misdemeanors and fines. At that point the homeowners panicked, called the HOA, called Boise Hunter and the day that the deadline hit the homeowners association sent out one man to do the job. It takes two and a half days to do -- or it takes -- you can do two and a half lots in one day, just so you have an idea. So, I think that is a consideration that needs to be a little bit more responsible and on top of that . That's all I have. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Gary Andrew? Okay. Kind of exhausted the list. Is there anybody else who would like to testify? Let the record show that. Becky, would you like to come and close. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. As far as the access on Taconic, there are two islands that are existing. The one at the main entry and, then, there is a second island. Our first entrance is a right-in, right-out on both sides, both the north and the south. The full approach is further back. So, that's just a right-in, right-out. Now, in planning when we look at the area of a project that adjoins a major arterial, which is what Eagle Road is, that's where we put our higher density homes. Now, picture this. There is going to be a roundabout there and at that roundabout we will have patio homes, then we transition to larger lots and the lots get larger, as far as -- the further into the project you go. That's normal. That's what we do from a planning perspective . We don't put our largest lots around a signalized intersection or a roundabout where we have a collector and a major arterial. As far as the slope maintenance, it sounds like where the HOA has failed, I think that's a really good reason why the homeowners, with certain detailed specifications and plantings should be responsible for that slope, because they will be able to maintain that better than the HOA. We just need to provide the framework in which they will have to have to follow and so I think that is doable. We have done it in other another projects. I have not had any circumstances where we had issues. As far as transitional lot sizes, Mrs. Karnes indicated that she didn't feel that we did a very good job on transitional lot sizes. When we are talking lots sizes from 5,500 all the way up to 26,000 square feet, a minimum of 15,000 square feet adjacent to Black Rock, I think we have done a really good job of transitional lot sizes. We need to create projects that are balanced. As far as the R-8, the patio homes, we have 23 on the north side and 15 on the south. Percentage wise we are, I believe, at about seven percent when you look at what is the patio homes. Those are also designated -- they are looking at single level targeting 55 and older. So, if they are targeting retired people, they are not going to be competing at the rush hour traffic that the other younger residents are going to be on the roadways during those peak hours . So, that's -- you know, that's one thing that we need to, obviously, take in consideration. School capacity was brought up. I did talk to the school district. I talked to Joe Yochum, if he needed an additional elementary site within this project. He said, no, he did not. That as far as they were concerned they had Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 24 of 69 just built a new elementary, that they had capacity. That's the first thing I do is contact the school district and see what's the status, do they need a school site. As far as the roundabout and trying to get on Eagle Road, Brighton right now is updating their traffic study and ACHD is analyzing it to see if they have met the warrant for the roundabout. In their conditions it said after the build out of their second phase, then, they would provide an update and, then, that roundabout would have to be constructed. So, I believe based on what ACHD has told me that they are nearing that threshold or they have met that threshold . Parking spaces at the pool. All we did was emulate what was the existing pool. There are four spaces. Typically when I do these projects we provide around eight to ten. We will evaluate the needs of that facility. If four is deemed inadequate then, obviously, Mr. Hunter I'm sure will -- we have the room, we can increase that parking lot size. Berming along Eagle Road. We showed a depiction of what our plans are. We have 30 feet that we will be berming and creating a barrier and landscaping. As far as the appeal of this development, we want it to look better than Hill Century Farm. We want it to stand out. Mr. Hunter has spent a significant amount of money obviously creating a neighborhood and a quality that we are going to continue and we aren't going to sacrifice just because we have a variety of lots. Rezoning. That R-2 zone -- that R-2 zone was a holding zone, because they did not, when they brought in Southern Highlands, provide any site plan for that area. It has always been Meridian City Council, if you want to annex and zone and you don't have a site plan, we are going to put R-2 on it and that's a holding zone un til we see what you're -- what you're proposing. This particular property is two designations, medium density, low density residential. We have a mixture of R-4, R-8, consistent with the comp plan. To pull different statements out of the comp plan and s ay it complies with this or it doesn't comply with that is not appropriate. There are specific findings that are made by this Commission, by the Council, by the staff that are in the staff report that address our facilities, our current transportation facilities, sewer and water available, emergency services to provide service to this area. The answer is yes. Does this meet the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan? The answer is yes. Medium density residential, three to eight dwelling units per acre, low density is up to three. We are well under that. We are well under three. Community values. Enhancing the quality of life and livability. We are just as concerned with that from a planning perspective and a development perspective as the residents are. The worst thing this community could do would be to say, you know what, we want all R-2 and one acre lots. That will not enhance or improve the quality of life or livability in Meridian. In fact, will isolate Meridian and just make it appeal to a certain small few who can afford a one acre lot. We, obviously, want to create quality and diversity that benefits more than just one sector. Eagle Road is a major arterial. It carries high volumes of traffic at high speeds. ITD has told me that time and time again. And so we anticipate that those volumes will continue to run. Also as far as the City of Meridian is concerned when it develops its water and sewer facilities, they design them at 3.5 dwelling units per acre average and that is an optimum number as far as what is the cost to provide services to these developments . When we drop Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 25 of 69 below certain densities, then, that skews what Meridian -- the cost escalates as far as providing services to those homes and it gets out of whack. We have got a good project here. We have spent months in the planning stage, working closely with adjoining properties, neighbors, and staff. I will end it with I did provide a letter. In that letter I highlighted the conditions that we are asking some modifications to. 1.1B, we want to make sure that the developer is eligible if current or future provisions allow for reimbursement for oversized, overdepth for any sewer or water facilities that add additional capacity. Under item 1.1E, we want to make sure that we are not required to build the site amenities on our primary open space until phase three, which is south of Taconic. And, then, on Ten Mile Creek, as far as the block length, that's -- obviously, Council will have to deal with that and we definitely do not want a common lot in the slope area . I just think that -- that will be worse than having the homeowners and having specific standards in which they can handle that and maintain that slope. And, then, I, remove one lot adjacent to Black Rock, instead of two. Make sure that the lot widths are one hundred feet wide and no lot is less than 50,000 square feet. And I believe the other provisions will be -- I will have to discuss those. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perrault. Perreault: Mrs. McKay, could you address the concern coming in on Taconic and making an immediate right turn onto Radiant Avenue? Did you say that there is an island there? That's a right-in, right-out? McKay: Yes, ma'am. Perreault: Is that the same as Raphine? McKay: No. Raphine is a full access. The first -- the first approach is just a right-in, right-out. Perreault: Okay. McKay: And there is an existing island there. And ACHD evaluated that and said that that was acceptable. Perreault: And, then, will the homeowners in phase one and two, they will be able to use the amenities in the other -- in the other development until they are completed in phase three, because it will be all the same HOA? McKay: Yes. They will be able to use the existing facility for phase one and phase two. Also the Black Rock residents, Mr. Hunter has allowed them to use Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 26 of 69 his pool facility for a nominal annual fee of a little over 200 dollars. So, he's been good to them. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just -- just want to clarify. You said that there -- there will be a berm on Eagle Road; is that correct? McKay: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: We did provide a rendering that -- that is in the PowerPoint that shows that there will be berming, yes. Yearsley: Okay. I think that's about all I had. I think you addressed most everything else I had written down. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Question with regards to the slope in the adjoining lots to Black Rock. Was it -- most of the lots there are good size, but they are -- they are long and narrow. Were those -- was that looked at keeping a lot of sizes the same, redoing that -- that street there -- I can't -- I can't read the name of that street -- and making them -- keeping the lot sizes the same, altering the dimensions. McKay: Sonya, you can put up the -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassanelli -- so, those -- the lots -- this is what we are proposing is -- they are one hundred feet wide. The original application had them 85 feet wide. So, they were 85 feet wide. So, they did look long and narrow. These are a hundred feet in width and I think it's -- especially the lot -- the one -- the first lot, two, is 224 feet deep by one hundred wide and, then, they transition to 150 feet in depth to a hundred feet wide. Fitzgerald: Becky, what's the lot sizes to the -- to the northwest on Lodge Trail? Because that -- they look like they are wider. They look like they are a 120 feet wide. McKay: On the north side? Fitzgerald: No. Go across -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 27 of 69 McKay: Oh, across -- Fitzgerald: -- Taconic. McKay: -- the street. Across the street they are a hundred, 99 and, then, there is one lot that's 121 and, then, 95 and 85. Fitzgerald: No, not across that street, but actually going into the existing subdivision on -- on Lodge Trail. McKay: Oh, you mean you go -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McKay: -- west. Fitzgerald: Northwest or whatever. McKay: I don't -- oops. You can see those to the west from that perspective. Fitzgerald: They just appear to be significantly wider than the ones -- McKay: Yeah. And what -- what you're looking -- what you're looking at here, the pink ones, those are the -- those were when they were 85. This -- this diagram was done when we had 85 foot wide . So, now they are a hundred and there is one less lot through there. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, do you have an idea of -- you said that you had talked to ITD and they are talking about widening Eagle Road. At what time -- are they on the CIP now for -- how many years out are we? McKay: What ACHD told me was that they were contemplating doing a cooperative agreement and possibly when the roundabout goes in, then, widening from Amity south to Taconic and -- and this came from Mindy Wallace and she said the reason being is if they -- if they have the development community install a single lane roundabout, when they do, within the next five years, widen Eagle Road, then, it would be wasted, unless it was upgradable. So, they are looking at possibly a cooperative agreement where Brighton kicks money in, Hunter Homes kicks money in, the district kicks money in and they do that whole stretch. So, she said they -- they are looking into that as an option, because no one likes to install an improvement that's a throw away and the district agreed with that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I had one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 28 of 69 Fitzgerald: Mr. Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Is it Sutherland -- what's the -- what's the subdivision just to the north of -- McKay: Southern Highlands. Yearsley: Southern Highlands. Sorry. Are you -- are they starting another phase in that -- McKay: They just finished construction of phase three -- Yearsley: Okay. McKay: -- and we will be starting construction on phase four here shortly and so right there in that area -- is there a pointer here? So, that -- if you look north of Taconic, those lots are consistent with the 85 and a hundred foot wide lots that we show in pink. So, they still have 80 lots that have not -- that are going to be coming online -- Yearsley: Okay. McKay: -- that are that larger lot size. Yearsley: So, will the phase four be your final phase in that subdivision? McKay: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Okay. So, you will be fully built out here by the end of the year with lots? Okay. Pogue: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Andrea. Pogue: If you can just repeat the condition regarding future reimbursement for some sewer infrastructure? Fitzgerald: 1.1.B? Pogue: Yeah. I didn't get a copy of that, so I -- could you just repeat that one? McKay: Yeah. 1.1B. 1.1.B. Pogue: And what do you -- what are you asking for? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 29 of 69 McKay: That they just add -- I can give you a copy. I have an extra. Pogue: Okay. That would be great. Fitzgerald: A question for staff while she's doing that. Can you explain this so it's on the record about what the request is or have you seen this? Pogue: Mr. Chair, thank you. Because I wasn't sure if I missed a step on this one or not, but I wanted to have more discussion. Allen: Yes, Chairman -- Commissioner Fitzgerald. The owner-developer requests eligibility if current or future provisions allow for reimbursement for sewer or water improvements that provide additional service and capacity to other projects. Fitzgerald: So, we are talking about latecomers is basically what we are talking about? Allen: Yes. Yearsley: I guess I have a question for staff before we close out with that. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Yearsley: Is that typically what we have done or is that -- I'm just curious, because I have not heard of that come before as an issue. Allen: Commissioner, not that I'm aware of. It's kind of hard to place a condition on something that we don't know if it's going to exist in the future. Yearsley: Okay. Because I was thinking that -- like I said, I don't remember that in any of the other ones that we have done before and that's really hard to track. Allen: Yeah. We really have to act on our current provisions in effect at this time. Yearsley: Okay. Pogue: Mr. Chair. And that would be the opinion of legal as well. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Any additional questions? Thanks very much. McKay: Appreciate your time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 30 of 69 Fitzgerald: We have a couple more questions for -- I think Sonya. Go right ahead. Cassanelli: Sonya, the two properties, Fulcher and the HOT3, I don't see the stub-ins for those. Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassanelli, the Fulcher property is right here. They are proposing a common driveway for access to these lots right here and that's what staff is recommending an easement be provided through this lot for access to the Fulcher property. Cassanelli: So, right now that's a common lot? Allen: It is. Yes. Cassanelli: Will that change the percentage if that's -- Allen: No. Commissioner, it's already -- it's a common lot, but it's -- it's for a common driveway for -- Cassanelli: Okay. Allen: -- access to these lots right here that don't have frontage on the public street. Cassanelli: Will that be sufficient if the Fulcher property is developed in -- in the future and adds to its -- if somebody developed that with four sites on it in the future, is that sufficient? Because they are not going to go -- there is not going to be access to Eagle Road I would guess. Allen: There can be up to six lots that have access off of a common driveway. I did not get a copy of an exhibit map with this application for these lots right here, which ones will be accessed -- obviously, these two will be. I'm not sure about this one. I assume it will just have a straight access to the road here, but I'm not positive of that. So, if so that would give four additional accesses off of the -- the driveway here, the common driveway. However, they would still have to meet the Fire Department standards for length. They can't exceed 150 feet. Cassanelli: In -- in the staff's -- is that going to be -- I mean could that be a potential problem down -- down the road where that property can't be developed to its potential because of -- because of access here? Allen: It's really the only alternative we have for that property. If -- if you require a cul-de-sac and a public street stub, it's really going to eat up a lot of that property. I'm not sure what would be left for development purposes at that point . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 31 of 69 Yearsley: Mr. Chairman. Isn't also part of that property part of the Ten Mile Lateral, so it's not nearly as big as people think it is. Allen: Yes. Cassanelli: Okay. And then -- so -- okay. And, then what about the -- that HOT3 property to the south? Where is the -- where is the stub? Allen: Commissioners, the applicant has not provided a stub. Staff is recommending that a stub is provided, unless the property changes to a nonresidential designation in the future. I assume it would probably be along the west side here, probably in alignment with the street. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the public hearing. Fitzgerald: Do I have a second? Perreault: Second. Cassanelli: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and a second. All those in favor to close the public hearing on H-2017-0068. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? It is properly before the Commission, so -- anybody want to kick it off? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, you know, I like the subdivision. I did listen to the public comments about small town character and charm and feel and my opinion is you can have a small -- or a small town feel and not be R-2. I like the R-4 zoning. I think it fits. I do agree with staff's recommendation to lose the two lots. I also agree with staff's recommendation to put that slope into a common lot and the reason is that is a pretty steep slope, it's pretty visible. I know there is a lot of homes along -- so, I live in Tuscany, just so everyone knows, and there is a lot of homes that face -- or back up against Eagle Road on the berm and looking back there you can kind of see it from different angles that it's rarely maintained by the homeowner -- homeowners, because it's so hard to maintain and -- and that's not visible, so it's not as big an issue, but I think these slopes are going to be very visible, even with homes there, that I think it makes sense to have the homeowners association to step up. I understand Becky's concern is the homeowners not stepping up -- well, the homeowners association needs to step Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 32 of 69 up. So, I do not agree with the reimbursement and I think that's more -- personally that is a Council discussion versus a Planning and Zoning. So, I -- you know, I recommend that to be brought up. I also would like to see staff talk with ACHD before Council and see if there is a way we can do some traffic calming along Taconic, because it's -- I can guarantee you it will become a problem and there is going to be enough -- enough property and enough people wanting to cross the street that it makes a concern and I don't know if it necessarily has to be a roundabout, but I do believe that there should be some traffic calming measures in Taconic to help slow the traffic down. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Yearsley, as the engineer on the Commission -- so, I think it's a raceway now. I think it will become less of a raceway with trees on it and -- but I think having rumble strips or like pathways of some kind that put on there or chokers or something that -- that -- I think it makes sense. Have it be a free and open field right now it kind of gets -- there is nothing to slow anybody down or think about slowing anything down. But I do agree, yeah, I think that -- before Council it would be good to discuss that. Yearsley: Okay. Well -- and like I said, I just look at -- in our subdivision we have very similar type deals and we have actually got a roundabout midway through ours and we still get a lot of complaints of people going way too fast and even with trees and landscaping in the center island it -- it becomes an issue, especially where you're going to widen this out to 36 -- 36 foot wide roadway. So, it will be -- so -- so -- where was I? Regarding schools. My wife was on the boundary committee for several of the school boundaries and -- and she was actually told by the school that they do not open a school unless it is at capacity and so you have to have over capacity to actually get them to want to build a school at capacity. It doesn't seem strange -- it doesn't seem right, but it's all about the dollars, because they need to have enough money to run the school at capacity. It -- it is what it is, so, you know, I think you have to build it and , then, they will come back with a new school. It doesn't seem like it's a smart way to go, but it's -- it's the way that they do that and that letter that the school does provide is a standard letter I think they provide to all the subdivisions on the busing. The R-8 lots. I -- I agree that they should be along Eagle Road. I understand that it's an entry corridor and everything, but no one is going to want a 500,000 dollar home facing -- backing up against Eagle Road. I know a lot of the homes that face up against -- back up against Eagle Road on our subdivision have a hard time selling just because of the location. So, I think it's, actually, a good layout. I think it's a good transition and I think it does make sense. So, I think with that I don't have any more comments. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 33 of 69 Perreault: I agree with all of Commissioner Yearsley's thoughts. I think that the -- the lots that are up against Black Rock -- Black Rock, excuse me, that I agree with staff's recommendations on that to have the two to one for sure and, then, I also wanted to address the parking for the common area. I definitely think they need to look at eight to ten spaces at a minimum and as far as the slope is concerned I understand the applicant's concerns about having to -- to fence that whole area off and it not being usable by anyone, but at the same time there -- there can be definite issues with -- with maintenance at that -- at that -- that distance that there is in the transition between the hillside and going down. So, I agree that the HOA should maintain that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, your thoughts? Cassanelli: My thoughts are I -- overall I like the -- I like the project. You know, personally I wanted to join this Commission because, you know, Meridian and where it's been and what it's becoming is important to me and -- and seeing development after development after development -- I mean it's -- you know, we are growing and it has to be done -- it has to be done right. It's -- it's a tough -- it's a tough juggling act. It really is. You know, what is -- what is Meridian going to look like in ten, 20, 30 years, you know. So, it's tough to respect the -- you know. And, then, that's one of my big things is, really, the transition from -- one -- one piece to the next. Homeowners that were there -- and I really -- you buy a piece of property by -- you know, that abuts large vacant land, you know, you're taking a risk. You don't know what's -- what's going to be approved and what's going to go in there, you know, so I'm -- I'm torn on that. But overall I -- I like the project. I do agree with the comments that have been made. I definitely think that -- that two lots need to be removed. I'm in agreement there. I also feel -- I don't feel that individual homeowners can upkeep that -- that space in the back, the slope, the way the HOA and a maintenance agreement could. You know, if they get a landscaping company who is going to take care of all the common lots, they take care of that, too. So, I -- I feel strongly on that. And I also agree with the -- with the comment about increasing parking by the pool area there . I know in my -- in the neighborhood I live in it's similar size and right now this time of year people going to the pool, you know, I scratch my head why somebody drives three blocks, but they drive three blocks and -- you know. I mean we get -- there is -- there is people parked all over the street, because we have only got about four -- four spots. So, I think that needs -- I think that needs to be increased. So, that's my -- Fitzgerald: Well -- and I agree with all of your comments. I think they were very well thought out. I think we are growing. It's -- definitely growth is coming to the south. I mean you guys are going through a huge transition right now and I know growing pains are very tough. I -- the common lot thing is a difficult one. As we go forward staff could probably help us out on how we want to do -- is it like tiering or it's -- something we need to talk about. We have the coalition that -- and I'm going to blank on -- Mrs. Karnes did a great job of -- of explaining that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 34 of 69 and maybe that's something we need to work on as a city explaining how to do that better. Obviously it's a problem Mr. Karnes discussed. I think that's -- so we need to take that into account. So, this is probably the fix for now. But I think -- I -- this tends to be like -- I lived in Woodbridge initially and it's -- smaller lots, smaller houses up on the main arterials. That’s where that makes sense to me and the transition going back to the large lots it makes sense and so I think -- I like the way it looks. I think the applicant has done a good job. I think they are -- the houses are going to be nice, specifically that they own both sides of Taconic, it will be -- it will flow well and they will have a nice community that will benefit the community itself overall. So, with that -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead. Yearsley: One -- one comment. I kind of have been torn on the pool amenity. You know, as -- as Becky explained, they are going to be fully built out in their current subdivision -- not all the homes built, but all the lots will be built in their current phase with one pool and, then, they are actually wanting to add two more phases -- actually, three more phases before they build the third -- second pool. I -- coming from a subdivision that has four pools, I know that the -- the developers underbuild the pools. They usually are just max capacity in the summertime. So, I am actually torn about leaving that in phase two versus phase three. But I actually would be interested to see what's -- you know, everybody else's question is on the pool. Fitzgerald: And I -- Commissioner Perreault, do you want to comment? Because I have my thought as well. Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Yearsley. Fitzgerald: And I -- Perreault: And staff's recommendations. Fitzgerald: -- we always say if you're going to develop, you go to develop -- even if you own the lots next door you kind of develop in your own -- what you're developing and so the amenities have to follow your building, unless it's another phase. And so I tend to agree with you. There is a lot of homes there for it to be -- have no additional amenities, besides a common lot. Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have a thought? Cassanelli: I would -- I would agree and -- good call on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 35 of 69 Yearsley: So, just for the record, I -- the way I understand it, the things that she wanted -- questions, we have kind of nixed all of them, so there is really no modifications to this; is that my understanding? Fitzgerald: Sonya had agreed to change something, but we are not agreeing to that. Is that -- is that what I'm understanding? If it's in the staff report it's correct the way we want it. Is that correct? Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of -- to City Council of file number H-2017-0068 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2017, with no modifications. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of H -0217- 0068. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Have a five minute break? Fitzgerald: We are going to take a five minute break for anybody who is staying for the last three, just to give us a break. Thank you all. (Recess: 7:50 p.m. to 8:01 p.m.) C. Public Hearing for Summerwood Subdivision (H-2017- 0083) by WHPacific Inc., Located 4052 and 4202 W. Daphne Street 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Six (26) Building Lots and Five (5) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 36 of 69 Common Lots on 9.98 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. We are going to get this thing started again -- after Josh tells me he's ready. The crowd has left us. So, I'd like to open the public hearing on H-2017-0083, Summerwood Subdivision and start with the staff report. Beach: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, as you mentioned, this is for the Summerwood Subdivision, which is a preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately ten acres of land, which is zoned R-4, located at 4202 and 4052 West Daphne Street. The adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is agricultural land or future residential zoned R-4. To the east a single family residential home zoned R-4. To the south and west are rural residential properties zoned RUT within Ada County. There is a lot of history on this property. I will skip to the most relevant. In 2006 the property was annexed and zoned R-4 and a preliminary plat was approved. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, so there is a development on this property. That plat died in 2014. Another preliminary plat as approved for the property consisting of 30 single family homes and, again, that preliminary plat also died. So, they are coming forward again. The Comprehensive Plan and future land use map designated for the property is low density residential. The plat consists of 26 building lots and five common, as I said, on approximately ten acres of land in R-4 the zoning district. Minimum lot size is proposed at 9,360 square feet, with an average of 11,938. The gross density is 2.62 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the low density residential future land use map. There are two existing homes on the site. The existing structure should be removed or relocated as applicable prior to signature by the city engineer on the final plat. The primary access for the subdivision is at the south property boundaries via West Daphne Street. A public street is stubbed to the northeast boundary of the property -- or West Wapoot Street from the Vicenza No. 1 and a stub street is proposed to the northwest boundary or future connection and interconnectivity upon redevelopment of the parcel to the west. The landscape plan that was submitted with the applicant -- with the application shows 8.1 percent of qualified open space. That does not comply with the provisions of the UDC, with a caveat that the applicant -- let me go to the landscape plan here. You can see which lot they are indicating as their open space and a couple of smaller common lots. So, moving back to the -- the primary plat. The lot indicated here is their open space lot. This preliminary plat application was submitted concurrently with the development agreement modification to include this with the overall Vicenza Subdivision, which is to the north and east of this, to be included in that development agreement. As part of that we have analyzed the open space and amenities provided with the overall subdivision and made the conclusion that with the added open space and the additional open -- amenities that are -- were provided with the other subdivision, they will be approximately 16 percent open space overall and the amenities provided with that other portion will accommodate this additional acreage. So, the amenity is provided for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 37 of 69 Volterra North Subdivision include a tot lot, a pool, a clubhouse. We also allow for an additional five percent open space to count towards an amenity. They have also provided an extension of the Meridian pathway system and provided some open cart. So, the -- we made the determination since it's under the same ownership and managed by the same HOA, staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the intent of the ten percent open space. The one last thing is the Scrivener Lateral and east drain cross the southwest corner and the south -- southern portion of the site. These waterways are proposed to be relocated along the south and west boundaries within a 20 foot wide easement. Waterways should be piped in accord with the UDC. The UDC also requires that waterways be located in a common lot and not on an easement as proposed. The applicant has to obtain City Council waiver to have the waterway as part of a buildable lot. Did receive written testimony from the applicant Jane Suggs in agreement with staff conditions and with that we are -- staff is recommending approval of the project. The applicant also, I apologize, did provide some -- it's difficult to see -- examples of architecture. I will also note that as part of this project the applicant is proposing to do these pavers as the street, similar to what they have done in the adjacent subdivision. Again, with that staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Josh, can you back up real quick? So, in -- I guess comparison to our last -- these common lots that they are talking about, that's going to Council; right? But it would be unbuildable area in the back of those lots; correct? An easement back there, but it's not buildable obviously. Beach: Correct. Fitzgerald: There is not a desire to turn those into common lots; correct? Beach: So, I guess some further explanation on that is we typically don't want these laterals to be piped and placed in buildable lots, mainly for the -- it makes it a little bit of a problem and it can be a problem with maintenance for the irrigation district to -- to access those. Yes, there is -- there will be an easement placed on there. Typically there is already an easement placed on the rear of these lots , but we have seen them become a problem in the past. And, then, typically we want them to be in common lots. In this case I -- the applicant may have an argument that Council can see -- Fitzgerald: The common lot somewhere. Beach: -- it not being in a common lot. Yes. But that's what the code requires, so they have to ask Council for that. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Josh? Commissioner Cassanelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 38 of 69 Cassanelli: The Joy Street there will that be -- that will be opened up, so there will be access on Joy Street, as well as going into the other subdivision to the north and to the -- to the east; is that correct? Beach: To the south is a public street -- is an existing public street, so that will be the main entrance and, then, this -- there is currently a stub street in this location where my mouse is to the Volterra Subdivision and, then, further to the west that would be a stub to nothing at this point. There is nothing proposed to the west of this property. Does that answer your question? Cassanelli: Yes. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? C.Jay, was there a sheet -- a sign-up sheet? Sorry. I'm losing my mind. Ms. Suggs, would you like to come forward and speak? I'm lacking in commissioner duties tonight, obviously. Suggs: My name is -- there we go. My name is Jane Suggs and I'm with WA Pacific and I'm here representing what I'm calling Bridgetower Investments and sometimes this whole area of development is called Bridgetower West and also the Summerwood Subdivision. This is sort of an addition to the Vicenza, which is located just to the east. So, there are several names. There is Volterra, which is the subdivision south of McMillan. There is Vicenza to the north and all of this is part of the Bridgetower Investments properties, along with Cottonwood Developers. I think Josh has done a great job of summarizing the whole project. I'm just going to highlight a few things and just a reminder, this was actually approved in 2014 with a very similar layout, but it had 30 lots. We have actually made the lots larger now, so there is only 26 buildable lots in the open space and the pocket park in the center still remains, so it will be landscaped. We are meeting the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density with our already existing R-4. We are also building at 2.6 dwelling units per acre and three dwellings per acre is typical of the low density. We are meeting all the subdivision requirements and we agree with all the conditions of approval in the staff report. So, it's all very noncontroversial we hope. We will be asking for not putting the lot -- the drainage that will be piped, we will be asking that to stay in the buildable lots. It will be just sort of a backyard and it's accessible, because we are running Daphne Street, so it would be easily accessible. We think that that's just a nice way -- instead of having that lot that's going to be between a fence and a fence and it's -- actually, I think it's kind of unsafe, I think it would be better to be there. Again, it won't be buildable, but nobody is really going to be building that last 20 feet of their backyard, especially these lots are pretty good size here that back up on the east -- I mean on the west and the south side. Let's see. I think, again, Josh did a great job of explaining a little bit about the open space. If this property had been in ownership whenever the layout of the original Vicenza was laid out, it would have been part of that and the overall open space amenities. It just wasn't part of that, but we will make that as part of the DA, the development agreement that's being revised now and we will be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 39 of 69 submitting that before it goes to City Council. So, that should all work out and -- oh, we love the pavers. This is an area with some high groundwater and so those of you that kind of like this stuff -- and I do -- this is a good way of dealing with that. We actually have pavers -- the streets made of interlocking pavers. It's not cheap, but the developer has a way to get those and put them in . They are already in. There is lots of detail about how they have to be maintained and you can't drive really fast on those streets either. I have driven all through some of the neighborhoods and they are really nice, because they are just comfortable enough that, you know, they don't rattle your teeth, but they -- you don't go fast on the streets. They are really nice for the neighborhood streets. Not on the major thoroughfares, but in the neighborhoods. So, I will stop right now and just answer questions and -- Fitzgerald: Any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did you say the -- did you say the intended use for that common area -- is that just going to be a grassed area? Is that -- Suggs: Grass and landscape and probably some benches in there. So, it's kind of a common -- just a meeting space. Again, just around the corner is a pool and a clubhouse, so there really wasn't a -- kind of desire -- this is more like a place where people get together and say let's walk over to the pool together, so -- Perreault: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Beach. Yes, sir. Beach: It has been brought to my attention by Caleb here that there is a concern that I neglected to see. Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3 are what we consider double frontage lots. I did not notice that they both back up both to Daphne or Joy, whichever street this is. So, there will need to be a common lot adjacent to Daphne Street in order to make that -- do you see what I'm saying? Fitzgerald: Yes. Beach: We typically don't want you to have access both to streets on both sides of your lot. So, that will need to be -- that area here specifically will need to be in a common lot in order to make that -- make those lots function. Fitzgerald: Ms. Suggs, do you have any comments to add to that -- with that change? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 40 of 69 Suggs: I was -- is there no -- I will ask the staff. Is there an appropriate way to address that through the development agreement or some sort of restriction on the lot? Again, just asking if there is a possibility of doing that. Fitzgerald: Caleb, go right ahead, sir. Hood: Mr. Chair. Jane, I'm not sure -- I mean you could do it that way. The code just prohibits the through lots, the double fronted lots. There is no width requirements on that. I mean there is -- with the easement that's -- putting the irrigation aside, but it could just be, you know, a fairly narrow strip. But, yeah, that is the intent is that someone doesn't pave a driveway from one street to the other, pull their RV one side, their garage is on the other. So, some -- again, our code just prohibits the design that way. So, the plat is probably just the best mechanism to nip it in the bud and design it with some common lot along the street there. Suggs: I think we call it spite strips. So, I will pass that along to our engineer. But, yes, I think that would be added to a condition of approval, that we use some mechanism to prohibit double fronting that lot, if that's the way it could be written and we will deal with that. I don't think I can fight that one. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional questions? Cassanelli: Question for -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: -- question for staff. Is it -- right now Daphne is a -- it's a county road, there is no -- there is no curb, no gutter; is that correct? So -- and this is calling for -- is there going to be curb and gutter put in there? Beach: Yes, it's a county road. I actually have not received the staff report from the highway district on that. There is -- they have kind of held off on their report with the discussion that you have been aware no w of the pavers. They are going to have -- my understanding is a hearing at ACHD to discuss the pavers and once that's finalized we will have a further staff report. Typically, yes, though, that is a requirement that they improve those roads. Cassanelli: Okay. So, including -- including a sidewalk and -- Suggs: If I can add. Fitzgerald: Please go right ahead, Ms. Suggs. Suggs: Do you have more? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 41 of 69 Beach: I apologize, I missed the question. Fitzgerald: Oh, no. I was just seeing if she wanted to add to that. Suggs: I'm just going to confirm that we have got a draft staff report from ACHD and it does say that we have to do curb, gutter, sidewalk along the frontage of Daphne and the pavers is only because staff can't make the decision on each subdivision that comes through, but it will be on the Consent Agenda next week, I think, in front of the commissioners, because the staff wants us to continue to use this in this particular area. So, I don't think there will be a problem with that. Again, your condition of approval just says we meet ACHD requirements, so we can do that no matter what. Fitzgerald: And just for the record, the pavers are already being used in the Vicenza Subdivision now? Suggs: Yes. And this is the same developer and this extension of the same thing and it's just ACHD's policy that they can't have staff approval of that particular material, they have to get the commissioners to okay it. Cassanelli: With putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk, will that add ress that issue of not having frontage onto -- Beach: No, it will not. There needs to be a common lot there. So, I guess just so I understand the question is that there is a -- is there a curb there? Is that -- does that get us away from that -- worrying about that condition, is that what you're -- Cassanelli: Yeah. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 42 of 69 Beach: No, it doesn't. There still needs to be a common lot there. They can just roll the curbs, she can just drive over and up into your property. Fitzgerald: Anything additional? Thank you, ma'am. I do not have anybody that has signed up for this -- to testify on this application. Is there anyone who wishes to testify? Okay. Seeing none -- Ms. Suggs, are you good? Do you need -- thank you, Ma'am. With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Yearsley: So moved. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: H-2017-0083 is properly before you, Commissioners. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm actually kind of interested to go out and see those pavers. I think that's kind of an interesting design. I just thought that looked pretty cool. Perreault: They are pretty cool. Yearsley: You know, I like -- you know, it's a pretty decent layout. I like the R-4. I like the fact that they can tie it into the Vicenza Subdivision and use their amenities as well. I think that makes this a lot more desirable lot. So, it's pretty straightforward. So, I'm in favor of it. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Yearsley. Fitzgerald: As do I. Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have any additional thoughts? Cassanelli: No, other than -- I mean it's -- everything around there is -- it's all county and I think there are several acre parcels in there, so to me you -- R-4 -- I like R-4s, but you're stuffing that in the middle of some rather large existing lots. There is -- there is no one speaking in opposition of it. Fitzgerald: I would guess that this is all going to get re -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 43 of 69 Cassanelli: Eventually. And I think those people will redevelop and work their way out of it. Is there -- I guess we just have to wait to hear from ACHD to the traffic on coming out either Daphne or Joy, if those streets are -- are suitable to handle the -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. They have to meet ACHD requirements. I don't think you're adding that many vehicle trips to this area. But yeah. Cassanelli: But, yeah, I think we should make those pavers standard going forward. Fitzgerald: With that I need a motion. Cassanelli: I will make them. Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0083 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2017, with staff conditions. Fitzgerald: The modification on the -- not double back -- double frontage. Cassanelli: Oh. And the modification on the lots backing up to Daphne, put a common area in there. Fitzgerald: Does that make sense? Could I get a second? Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Southridge Apartments (H-2017-0077) by Southridge Farm, LLC Located South Side of W. Overland Road, Midway Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 476 Multi-Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 27.73 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 44 of 69 Fitzgerald: With that we will be moving on to open the public hearing on H-2017- 0077, Southridge Apartments and, Josh, it's all you, sir. Beach: Very good. As you said, this is an application for a conditional use permit. The site consists of approximately 27.73 acres of land, which is currently zoned R-15, located on the south side of West Overland Road, midway between South Linder Road and South Ten Mile Road. The subject property is primarily surrounded by developed and undeveloped commercial and residential properties, which are zoned RUT in Ada County, R-2, R-8, L-O and TN-R. In 2007 this property was annexed with a development agreement and a preliminary plat, as part of the Southridge Subdivision. A property boundary adjustment was approved in 2008 that identified ten original parcels of record that were recorded in Ada County recorder's office prior to April 2nd, 1984. In 2011 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation of 26.38 acres of land from medium density residential to medium high density residential. A rezone of 42.36 acres of land from TN-R, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts to what we see now as R-15 zoning district and a new development agreement was required as a provision of that rezone . A boundary adjustment was approved in 2015. They have reconfigured the boundaries of the site and in 2015 a development agreement modification was approved to update the conceptual plan for the Southridge Apartments. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium high density residential. As I said, a conditional use permit is requested for the development of multi-family residential uses on the subject 27.73 acre property in the R-15 zoning district. The UDC -- or Table 11-2-A-2 also requires conditional use permit approval for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district. The developments consists of 476 dwelling units within 42 two and three story structures. The units will consist of one, two and three bedroom units containing 500 to 800 square feet for the one bedroom units and 800 to 1,200 square feet for the two and three bedroom units. A breakdown of those. There are 118 one bedroom units, 238 two bedroom units, and 120 three bedroom units and the buildings vary both in design and, then, layout. The applicant is proposing an approximately 6,000 square foot clubhouse and 2,000 square foot pool house. The clubhouse is proposed to contain a fitness facility and a meeting room with kitchen and the applicant has provided elevations as of this afternoon for the clubhouse. So, the staff finds that the proposed project is substantially compliant with the concept plan approved with the development agreement . There are several what we call specific use standards for multi-family projects and the applicant does comply. I will note that because 476 units are proposed, we have a sliding scale for the number of units -- the number of units. There is a sliding scale for the number of amenities you are required to provide based on the number of units that you have. So, then, the applicant has proposed to provide the following amenities: A clubhouse with a fitness facility, two swimming pools, a children's play structure and 350 by 100 foot open space areas , as well as a pool house. Off-street parking is required to be provided on site in accord with the standards in the UDC. For multi-family developments parking standards are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 45 of 69 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. One bedroom units require one and a half spaces per unit, with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage and two bedrooms -- two bedroom units require two spaces per unit, at least one of those in a covered garage, as well as two and three bedroom units both require two and one covered garage. For commercial development -- or in this case the clubhouse and pool house facilities, one space is required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. So, the final count of the one, two and three bedroom units is as follows: The one bedroom units, as I said, there is 118, which is equivalent to 177 parking spaces. For the two bedroom units there are 238, so 476 parking stalls are required. For the three bedroom there is 120 of those, so 240 parking spaces are required. The clubhouse and pool house, a minimum of one space for 500 square feet, so based on a 6,000 square foot clubhouse and a 2,000 square foot pool house, 16 parking spaces are required to be provided. Total number of parking spaces required for the overall development is 909. The applicant has proposed to provide 909 parking spaces, which meets the requirements of the UDC. Street buffer landscaping along West Overland Road and South Grand Fork Way -- move to the site plan here. This is the concept plan that was approved back in 2015, which shows three phases. There was not a concept provided for the third phase, which will be developed in the future. Just phase one and phase two. So, as you see here, West Overland Road wraps the north and west side of the project and South Grand Fork Way is a road that will be constructed as part of this. Direct access to the project will be off of Grand Fork Way, not to West Overland Road. There is a requirement that the Fire Department placed on the project that they provide an emergency access out to West Overland Road. As I said, landscape buffering is required along West Overland Road, which is an arterial roadway and along South Grand Fork Way, which is considered a collector. The proposal does meet the requirements of the UDC as far as landscaping is concerned. A five foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along Overland Road and South Grand Fork Way. The development agreement requires that the applicant provide access to the parcel directly to the east of this and that access be protected and -- let me back up. I have a -- there are two provisions in the development agreement. One is that there be a stub provided to the property directly to the east of that that is no longer applicable, because there will be a road constructed directly along that boundary. There is additional requirement in the development agreement of everything -- well, I will pull up that exhibit from the applicant. There is a requirement -- there is an existing home kind of in the center of this parcel here, kind of oddly designed that way, and there is a condition in the development agreement that the applicant provide -- that access be protected and preserved until an alternative access route is provided . The applicant shall provide details of the access for this lot prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application. They have submitted that to us this evening and they are proposing to change this a little bit, but I believe their -- the proposal will meet the intent of providing access to that -- that home. Long term access to the home here will need to be provided in some other way. As soon as this property to the west is developed they will have to figure out how to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 46 of 69 continually provide access to that home that's there, but this -- this meets the intent of the development agreement as it stands. With that there was a -- there is another condition that phase one of the development staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate to ACHD and construct an offsite portion of South Grand Fork Way to connect with the future phase of the Southridge Subdivision. So, as you can see, this is the Southridge Subdivision plat that -- exhibit that the applicant sent to us. They are -- we are recommending that an offsite portion -- that this road be built to meet up with the phase of the Southridge Subdivision, so that there is another way to access both the Southridge Subdivision and Southridge Apartments -- go back to my PowerPoint and kind of show you that a little bit better. There is a portion -- and as shown in the concept plan by the applicant, there is a third phase is owned by the same -- same individuals and entity for phase three. So, staff's condition is they build this off-site portion to meet up with the other property that they own and are developing in the Southridge Estates Subdivision. Fitzgerald: Josh, where does the road come through the existing home on this rendering? Do we know where it comes in or do we ask Tamara later? Beach: I could pull up a -- I could pull up an aerial if you would like to see that. Just a second. Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: Where you see the little hand there, this is where the existing home is. So, there is Thorn Lane -- kind of wraps around and currently they take access from -- from this point here. Their property boundary is within the lot here approximately where the -- the outline where the hand is there. So, the applicant is proposing to reroute it a little bit, but this portion of Thorn Lane will stay as is and they will be able to access through their development. Longer term they will have to figure out how to make that work with future development in the area and it is a little goofy, but I think that will -- that will meet the intent of the development agreement. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Beach: There were some conceptual elevations provided for the buildings -- kind of difficult to see in black and white, but there is a mixture of materials. The majority of the buildings are either slightly or significantly different. Both the two story and three story buildings are different in architecture. Similar in materials to be cohesive throughout. With that the applicant will be required to come forward with a certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review for the design of these to make sure that they meet code. We did receive written testimony from the applicant Tamara Thompson. Staff is recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 47 of 69 Fitzgerald: Any questions for Josh? Tamara, would you like to come forward. Thompson: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Tamara Thompson and I'm with the Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Josh did a good job of giving you an overview of the project , so I won't go through all of that again. One thing I do want to reiterate, though, is that there is a development agreement on the property and Josh showed you the concept plan, that colored plan that was up is the concept plan for the development agreement and this project and this proposal is in substantial compliance with the development agreement. A couple questions came up that I just heard, so I will address those. One was the access to the home off of Old Thorn Road. And I'm sorry, Josh, if you could put that arrow for me that would be great. Can I point? Sorry. The -- the access will be maintained for them . It won't be preserved in its current location. So, I want to clarify that. There is a road that -- an access road that comes from the east that would be maintained for that access to that home. The future phase of that -- we are currently working on a preliminary plat for that area to the south and west of the Ridenbach Canal and that will eventually be a lot within that subdivision. So, it would take access in the long term through the new phase of the preliminary plat that you will see hopefully soon. Some of the other items that -- that she brought up is -- or that Josh brought up is the access -- the offsite. So, what we are proposing with phases one and two -- and I'm sorry, my plan, please? Site plan. With phases one and two of this apartment complex, the road connection for this -- for this new road on the east side, there would be just a small portion of that that's in phase three and that we are not -- we don't have a timeline for that yet . So, we are fine with doing that connection to get it down to the other preliminary plat or the other plat that we are working on that's to the south single family homes. It is shorter -- a shorter section, though, than -- than what Josh was showing, so I just want to make sure it's clear that we -- with this it really is just -- I can't seem to touch the screen. It really is just that small section and, then, we have a plat that is -- Fitzgerald: If you touch the pencil and, then, color I think. Beach: You should be able to draw on there, Tamara. Thompson: But every time I do it it says only one person can have access at a time. Only one person can annotate at a time. So, I don't have -- technical difficulties. Okay. Okay. So, it really is only that small section there and, then, we have a plat that we are working on on that lower section. We have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis. The recommended con ditions of approval and the findings in the staff report, with a few modifications -- I didn't know earlier those comments. The -- and I believe since writing this e-mail, if you guys have a copy of that, there were four items on there. Since -- since submitting that I was able to get Josh most of the items on this list. So, just to clarify, the property management office and the maintenance area is in the clubhouse. We provided both a site plan -- both a floor plan and elevations for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 48 of 69 those to show that. The mailbox and directory map -- the mailbox location and directory map, we are requesting that that be designated with the CZC and design review application. We are working with the post office on those locations. Our intent is for those to be in the clubhouse and pool house area. So, two -- two main areas for those. The -- we talked about Old Thorn and, then, with the open space exhibit, I did provide that to Josh earlier today and we are well over the requirement on the open space and I gave him t hose calculations and he has that, too. You can see that here. The required open space is 119,000 square foot -- feet and just with the areas that we have highlighted in green we are over 184,000 square feet and we didn't use -- there is quite a bit of other areas that would qualify. But just without we are well over that. The -- let's see. The other one is the 1.1.4, the elevations for the clubhouse and the pool house. We supplied the clubhouse. That is going to be in phase one. The pool house is in phase two. So, we don't have that. But we do have the floor plan, which was provided and that the more detailed drawings would be submitted with the CZC and the design review applications. And, then, lastly, the 2.1.1 -- and this one, Josh, I understand that there are some -- that you had some conversation this afternoon with Public Works and that there are some additional -- some added language for that and we agree with the additional language that Josh has provided here and with that we respectfully request your approval tonight and we will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Questions for Tamara? Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman. On your site plan it showed two pools. Are you just not -- are you only doing one pool or are -- or who is that -- because on your concept plan you're showing -- it looked like two pools. On the very first one, that color one. Beach: There actually are two pools on their -- on their site plan. Thompson: Yeah. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: Just so that you -- so you know. There is one located where my mouse is here, with a pool house. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: And, then, a second pool over here with the actual clubhouse. Yearsley: Okay. Thompson: So, just clarify on that, there -- this is phased. So, of the total acreage and the total number of units, we are planning phase one, which is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 49 of 69 roughly 50 percent of the site, and phase two, a second -- and the phase line -- see if I can make it draw again. It is roughly like that. Yearsley: Okay. Thompson: And the access road would be the first phase and moving to the west. Yearsley: Okay. Thompson: And, then, yes, pool location here and pool location here. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Tamara, where are you guys putting your emergency access to Overland? Or do you know yet? Thompson: Mr. Chair, we have looked at that and with the grades and everything we are proposing that that emergency access would go in this location. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thompson: This -- this area down here, there is a considerable grade difference there. Fitzgerald: And, Josh, can you bring up the original rendering from the -- the development agreement? So, just thinking that -- and looking at this, so there is on here 14 -- or 416 units, same spot, that we are going to 476 with multiple -- more than -- less buildings, if I remember correctly. Is that correct? We have increased by 60 units with less buildings? Thompson: We have increased by -- by 60 units. I'm not -- I'm not positive on the buildings, but the development agreement allowed for a certain number of units total and those units weren't used on a different area and so for the total units that were approved with the development agreement, were in that number. That's the number that we are hitting. So, we just transferred some of those units. Fitzgerald: So, how many units are totally allowed for Southridge -- or totally? Is that including the subdivision itself, phase three, and the neighborhood? Thompson: Yeah. There were some areas of the subdivision that we didn't have the -- the density that we were allowed and so we are asking for those to be transferred to this area. So, we have the exact number of units that were originally allowed, but it made this area a little higher density. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 50 of 69 Fitzgerald: Okay. I think the only other question, unless somebody else has a question, is the 909, is that what it is -- are dead on -- Thompson: Parking. Fitzgerald: -- parking. Were you concerned about that? Because you have no parking anywhere else on Overland or on -- whatever this road is over here. Whatever that road is called. Correct? Is that -- so, you're -- Thompson: It's all on-site parking. On-site parking, yes. Fitzgerald: And you are covering half of it; is that correct? Thompson: That is correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thompson: We are complying with -- with the code on that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Cassanelli, go ahead. Cassanelli: What -- what's the plan for phase three? Thompson: Commissioner Cassanelli, I -- I have not seen that plan. That is in the future and that has yet to be developed. But we will have to come back for a development agreement modification and another CU for that. So, you will see that in the future. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, what's planned for that eventually -- Thompson: Oh, eventually that -- I'm sorry. That would be more apartments. Fitzgerald: More apartments. Thompson: Potentially, yes. Fitzgerald: Anything else? Sir, did you want to -- state your name and add comments? Densmer: Yeah. My name is Jason Densmer. I'm also with the Land Group and I have been working together with Tamara on the application. Actually, I have been involved with Southridge since about 2006, or I just have a little longer legs on the project and I could maybe help answer a couple of those questions. So, when it was originally annexed into the city the Southridge project was overlaid by a master development agreement and, then, subsequent to that -- that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 51 of 69 apartment area was overlaid again with a different development agreement and so those two development agreements were resolved in 2012 and kind of clarified, because there were some conflict. But ultimately the overall Southridge was allocated a total number of units and, then, the apartments was given a piece of that. I believe the numbers were that the total apartments allocation was about 592 units, with the overall Southridge project being around 1,200 units. As the project has kind of moved forward with design, the -- the bulk, 1,200 units, doesn't appear like we will be able to achieve that total allocated density, but within the apartment component we wouldn't exceed the 592 that was allocated under the development agreement. So, as you know tonight the application for phases one and two is the 476 units. Within phase three we would need to bring back to the city a development agreement modification, which was required under the apartment development agreement in the first place and describe to the city how we would develop phase three and use whatever portion of that difference between 476 and 592 units. Ultimately it became the design was in that phase three area. Again, this -- even with the apartments, if it were to develop out to the maximum 592 allocated to the apartment area, the overall Southridge we are expecting to still remain quite a bit less than the 1,200 total in the overall development agreement. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Densmer: Does that make -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. That makes -- that's helpful. Thank you very much. Densmer: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any other questions? Thank you both. Tamara, anything else? Thompson: Just thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a few people signed up. Wayne Amend. Please come up, sir. State your name and address for the record. Thank you for b eing patient through our adventure this evening. Amend: Hello. I'm Wayne Amend and I live at 2155 West Overland. I own the property east of this development. One thing I didn't -- I would have liked to have seen their entrance more vividly. We have a stand of trees that are in my driveway. Currently the curb comes in and they said they were going to leave my trees alone. So, that entrance is going to take a big jog right there. I didn't see -- it looks like it's straight. I don't -- you know, I just don't know what's going on there. I'd like to know. They said they were going to leave my entrance alone, which is right down there in the very corner, now and future developments, you know. At the public meeting we were kind of curious. They said they weren't going to put in the gutters and the sidewalks down on the east side. I just was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 52 of 69 kind of curious about why that wasn't going to happen. And, then, there was no mention of my easement -- irrigation easement that goes across their property to their -- I don't know if it's going to be in phase three or if it's a phase two. That part of it I would like some answers to. Fitzgerald: When Tamara comes back up we will make sure she answers your questions. Amend: Another thing we would really like to request a fence down that side to keep the people out of those trees. And the irrigation ditch that runs all the way down that side of my property is just a hazard. Fitzgerald: Mr. Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: So, just for clarification. Were you asking for a fence on your side of the property -- Amend: No. Yearsley: -- or on their side? Amend: Their side of the property. Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding where that fence was -- where you were wanting that fence. Thank you. Amend: Yeah. And I'm kind of curious of what that's going to mean for us down in the future, you know, because my understanding you got another apartment complex going on the other section now coming up. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Mr. Prevos, do you want to come and testify? No? Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify on this application? No? Tamara, would you like to come up and -- or Jason. See if we can answer some of the questions. Densmer: Thank you. Jason Densmer again for the record. If you -- Coles: Jason, will you pull that -- that top microphone closer to you there? That should work. Densmer: Is that better? I will try. As far as Mr. Amend's questions go, I think I can offer a little bit more clarification. So, in order to comply with the various requirements that we have, one of which is to provide him access to that public road, we are proposing to build that extension of Grand Forks adjacent to -- basically so that it touches his property line along the entire east boundary of this project, which provides him an ultimate flexibility as his property developed in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 53 of 69 future to connect to it where ever ACHD will allow and it also meets the development agreement condition that Josh reminded you of earlier about maintaining property access to him. We think that works out great for us and when we met with him during the neighborhood meeting we talked about potentially even providing a driveway stub from Grand Forks directly to his house, instead of the access that he currently has to have a long driveway that extends out to Overland Road and I think we can work out those details with him. As far as the trees go, because the property -- because of the Grand Fork Road extension will be entirely on the Southridge Apartments property, the trees that are on his property wouldn't be affected by that, because they are not in the corridor that we need for the road extension. We certainly will also be working with him to make sure that his irrigation is preserved. Will have some irrigation improvements that are going in as part of the apartment project and maintaining his access to irrigation water is part of that. I think his last question had to do with the fence. I have to admit, I was a little unclear about the position of it I think like Commissioner Yearsley. I think as we propose with the materials that you saw and the landscape plan, we wouldn't intend to have a fence along the west side of Grand Fork and I don't think that there is any requirement that we do a fence along the east side of Grand Fork, which would be his common property line. But it's something that we could review with the developer and see if its someone they would be willing to add to the project. Fitzgerald: Curb, gutter and sidewalk, is that something you guys are planning to do on that road and is it both sides or only a single side? Are you doing half? Densmer: We would do the half plus 12 per ACHD's requirements. So, it would leave an unimproved section on his side that would allow him to improve it out and tie into the location that makes the most sense upon future development of his property. Fitzgerald: Questions? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Densmer: My pleasure. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2017-0077. Cassanelli: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thoughts? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 54 of 69 Cassanelli: Can I jump in? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, go right ahead. Cassanelli: You brought up something I was thinking already and that -- that is parking. Other apartment complexes that we have seen in the past tend to -- that's always -- it seems to be a problem. I'd somehow like to see more parking. When you get this many units there is a lot of guests, it leads to outside roads, it -- there always seems to be problems. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have a tendency to agree with Mr. Cassanelli, especially where they don't have potentially any overflow parking and if they are just doing the minimum for the last third, I'm assuming that we are assuming two parking spots per unit or -- I'm not exactly sure how that works out, but I would like to see a -- given the size a few more parking spots. I don't know the magic number, you know, what that would be, but I do think some additional parking is probably warranted . Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I am always in favor of more parking. Fitzgerald: So, my only -- and I should have asked Tamara this and I may see if we could open the public hearing again, but if I look at this -- Josh, can you scroll it and -- to like the middle. So, what I'm seeing is that we have -- we have to deal with trash and recycling somewhere in the middle of this thing and there are trash bins that look pretty small to me. I'm not sure how many there are. And if it would be -- if it would be interesting to -- or interested in having Tamara or Jason come up and explain that. But what I don't want to have it turn into is this becomes we are losing parking spots to be deal with trash and recycling and -- I don't know. Can you scroll in a little bit further on the -- on one of these -- Beach: Bear with me. I'm being -- Fitzgerald: While you're doing that would it interest the Commission to have Tamara or Jason answer that question about what they would be willing to do on parking or -- and if trash recycling -- and recycling are included in some of the other small -- what I see are the service container areas? Thoughts? Yearsley: I think it makes sense. Let's get it addressed now before we have any confusion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 55 of 69 Fitzgerald: Yeah. I guess I request to open the public hearing again or do I need a motion? Pogue: You need a motion. Fitzgerald: I need a motion. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the public hearing. Fitzgerald: Do I have a second? Cassanelli: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Jason or Tamara, do you guys -- can we get an understanding here -- looking at these -- and I apologize to the Commissioners. They look small that handle both recycling and trash and not lose additional parking and to keep them contained. Can you kind of address that. And, then, additional thoughts on parking. Because it seems like we are -- we are maximizing -- or we are to the letter of the code, but not anything else. So, that concerns us I think in general. Densmer: Okay. Sure. I would be happy to chat about that for a little bit. So, the strategy for trash is important -- mostly for a property value standpoint and from an esthetic appeal. We certainly want to make sure that there is adequate trash facilities to service all the residents, so that it's not a problem. So, you have highlighted one example of the trash enclosures, which would be built out per the trash company's requirements for screening and all of that. The enclosures of our standard design is already being built elsewhere in the city and it accommodates both the dumpster and some recycle bins. It has big gates on the front for the trash company to access and a small -- smaller opening for you and when we come and go, so we don't have to open those big gates to get to it. They have been very successful. As far as locations go -- I don't remember the exact number, but there is nearly ten I think -- if we look around the site plan I'm sure we can find them. But the goal is to position them centrally within a group of about four buildings, so that each enclosure is handling only those residents that are right near to it. So, it's very convenient. I don't know if you want to try and find them all in the -- Beach: There are nine. Fitzgerald: So, I'm just -- as we are looking at it we have one trash receptacle that I can see and I can see six buildings. Seven buildings at most. So, I’m a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 56 of 69 little -- I'm just making sure that we are -- that we are meeting Republic's requirements, but it just -- what worries me is we are going to get complaints from the -- the tenants, because they have to walk a half a mile to get to their trash can and, then, we are going to put new trash receptacles in and take out parking that we don't have. Does that make sense? Densmer: Yes, I understand the concern. Oh. I'm being told only one person can annotate at a time. Well, while I was going to -- I think Josh found the ones I saw. Beach: There is others off the screen. If I zoom out is messes it all up, but there is a couple more down in the southwest corner as well. But there are nine located and it looks like they are about equal distance from each other. Densmer: Obviously, they were designed so they would be convenient for people. As it relates to the parking quantity, let me preface by saying I'm a trained civil engineer and I think asphalt is beautiful. But at the same time, kind of my design sense says that we should provide only the parking that will be necessary and we felt pretty confident that the city's code had analyzed parking needs at least to the level to understand that -- what would be necessary for a project of this scope. There is always opportunity to provide excess parking. I don't know as that really benefits the project however in that we end up with additional storm water requirements when we pave surfaces. We lose landscape, which is more highly valued by people than blacktop is, despite my best efforts to make everything blacktop as a civil engineer. So, it was certainly our goal not to provide inadequate parking, but -- and it wasn't only to meet the code minimum either, but to provide the necessary amount based on the city's analysis of land use zoning law and also by doing that to maximize the landscape areas in the project by not turning it into parking area. So, I think as you saw earlier, the requirement for common open space in the project is about 109,000 square feet. We have got in excessive of 184,000 square feet just in those green areas and there was much more of the site that we didn't even bother to color green, because we were so far in excess of the city's requirements. I think what you will see at build out of the project is the -- the feel of the project is very different from some of the other apartment developments that you 're familiar in the area. Because it is such a low density, comparatively speaking, this project, if you recall, is set at R-15. It has an effective density just slightly above that because of the -- the transfer areas we talk about before. Most apartment developments are done in an R-40 density and so the amount of green area and open space in this project will be so significantly more than you would see elsewhere. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Jason? Are we -- make sure we get it out of the way. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 57 of 69 Yearsley: So, I -- just out of curiosity, if we have got nine dumpsters for -- for -- you said per nine buildings, are the dumpsters big enough to handle that many homes? That would be my concern is always having your trash overflow and it causing a mess in that respect, so -- that causes me some concern on the sizing of those. I don't know how -- if you could address that or not or -- has Republic Storage reviewed this and approved it or -- or have they even seen it? Densmer: They are one of your conditions of approval is that we gain their approval of the project, so I think that that's covered. They do have opportunity to increase the pick up frequency and do some other things like that, so that, you know, you don't have to have as much trash capa city, because they can just pick it up more frequently, which is kind of nice there anyway, because you don’t have the trash sitting around as long. But that's -- that's one of the things you have already tasked us to do is to get their approval of the project and we will do that. If they decided that we -- we needed larger enclosures, obviously, we would accommodate their needs. Perreault: Mr. Chair, that puts it at about 53 units per trash enclosure. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Any additional questions for Jason? Perreault: One more question for the applicant. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Perreault: And did I understand correctly that neither pool will be built until phase two? Densmer: No, that's not correct. Perreault: Okay. Densmer: The clubhouse and pool on the east half of the project is in phase one. Perreault: Phase one. Okay. Densmer: It will be built with that phase. Fitzgerald: Everybody good? Yearsley: I think so. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley? Thank you very much. Densmer: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 58 of 69 Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Cassanelli: So moved. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: So, I will take -- I think -- and as Commissioner Perreault knows, I don't like asphalt as much as everybody else might, so parking is not as big of -- I'm not a big huge fan of parking, because it is an asphalt jungle, but when you have a collector -- or an arterial like Overland on one side that you can't park on, you have a road to the right that you're doing half plus 12, that you can't park on either. Maybe we can ask staff to work them before City Council to co me up with some additional -- because they do have additional open space. This is a huge -- this is a huge project. It's enormous. I know this is master planned, so I kind of think it's the right place for it. I mean I think it's the right location for this. I think near the freeway, at that bend in Overland, if there is not around -- that would -- they would impact, but I think it's the right location. I don't know if this is the right layout or -- in regards to parking and trash enclosures. Those are my two concerns. But I think in general the initial layout that they brought forward initially was probably maybe a little bit better. I don't know. I'm just -- I'm having a little bit of concerns with maximizing to the nth degree. I know we put code out there to make certainty do you meet code, do you meet code, that's what you're doing. And so if we want to have additional parking maybe we need to ask for additional to be put in code. So, that's -- I have a tendency to -- that's a tough one for me, because if -- if you're an engineer you're required to do a certain amount, that's what you want to do. And so I -- I struggle with that a little bit. Thoughts? Perreault: Mr. Chair, I do like a lot of parking, but not at the expense of the common area and I don't know that I ever thought I would say let's take some of that green space and -- and add some parking, but in this situation I don't think that it's necessarily a bad idea. Where I can't say. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Where this is a conditional use permit this does not go to City Council, so we approve for tonight -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 59 of 69 Yearsley: -- or continue it here tonight. I agree, I think we need to look at addressing additional parking and potentially more -- that's a lot of units per dumpster. You know, and -- you know, if Republic Storage has agreed to it, maybe they have a better feel of what they are planning to do, I just -- I don't know. It's hard to -- hard to make that determination. You know, given the layout the way it is, I don't know where you would add parking, to be honest with you, unless you do some major reconfiguring or lose a building of some sort. I would almost lean to continue this to a future date to have them come back and provide -- show how they are going to provide more parking. Fitzgerald: Or the other option is you take three stories down to two stories and round -- Yearsley: Add more parking or reduce the number of units. Fitzgerald: Yeah. And I don't -- I know that's not always my favorite thing to do, but I think it's got to be a balance and there is literally nowhere else to park . I mean you -- you have neighbors or the subdivision to the -- you know, to the south that you impacted and this isn't in Old Town, so this is where we are trying to get a -- you know, a dense product where people are walking and biking and this is not that area. Yearsley: Yeah. And there is nothing out there at this point anyway, so they have to drive, so -- I do think we need to at least provide direction on how much more parking we need to request and given the conditional use permit we do have that purview to -- to give that recommendation. So, I don't know what is a good number, to be honest with you. Fitzgerald: Josh, do you have any thoughts on this one as guru and let -- what would make sense? I -- what I don't want to do is -- I don't want to prolong it, because I really do think this is the right location. I think that we are very close in regards to a project that would make sense. I just don't -- the balance of parking and trash for the sanity of eventual tenants is concerning. Josh: I think any -- as much direction as you can give staff and the applicant is -- I mean are you looking for a certain number above what the code would require? I mean there is multiple ways we could get there, but I think having a -- having a range of additional parking stalls that you're looking for I think would help both the applicant and staff decide whether that means that we lose buildings, whether that means we make it two story versus three. Some of them. There is multiple ways to get there. I think that number is going to help us. Fitzgerald: And just so we are on the record, so everybody understands it, if Republic Storage has already reviewed this -- correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 60 of 69 Beach: I do not believe that they have. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, my concern there is before final plat they have to get it approved, so -- and they come back and say we don't have a trash enclosure, so are we going to have to split up parking spaces and that's what I -- that's my biggest concern. Beach: I think the condition reads before certificate of zoning compliance -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: -- they have to -- you have that reviewed by Republic Services. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, have you got any thoughts? Cassanelli: I don't know what the magic number would be on additional parking, if it's ten percent or -- or -- Fitzgerald: That was my -- that was my gut was ten percent. Cassanelli: Ten percent. I mean that's, what, another 90 spots? How many buildings in total are we looking at here? Forty -- Fitzgerald: Four seventy-six. Cassanelli: No. But buildings. Beach: There are 42 buildings. Cassanelli: Forty-two buildings. Another two per building -- Fitzgerald: Or you got one per building. Yearsley: That would be about 20 percent. If you did a ten percent you're looking at about 48 spots. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I would say 40 would make -- ten percent makes more sense to me than 90. Cassanelli: Well, 90 -- there is -- ten percent more -- more -- there is already 900 spaces. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassanelli: So, ten percent would be another 90 spaces. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 61 of 69 Fitzgerald: I guess ten percent of -- I don’t think there is room for 90 more spaces. Cassanelli: I think the spaces that are already there are going to be pretty well taken up by the tenants. It leaves nothing for guests. Fitzgerald: So, do we really need ten percent? Cassanelli: Maybe five. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I don't think -- I don't think we need 90 more spaces. Yearsley: So, maybe we give them a range between 90 -- 45 and 90. Heck, we could do 75. Split the difference. Perreault: Mr. Chair, you could add another half space, because the one bedroom units -- that puts you at about 60 or so. If we are going on 118 -- that makes it 236 stalls required on one bedroom units. If you want to tie that to something specific. Fitzgerald: Or down to two story. Yearsley: Well, you give them the option to either, yeah, lose units or increase parking by 60 stalls. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Because the amenity is -- the way it's laid out -- I mean I think it's -- the lay out I mean I think it's -- the layout is good. I don't -- I mean it would be hard to put -- where do you put the stalls? Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: But the conversation is you either reconfigure the whole thing or you take some of the three stories down to two stories. Beach: I do want to mention really quick that that 909 does include the parking stalls that would be required for the pool house and the clubhouse. So, there are those additional 16 parking spaces that theoretically in the evenings or overnight I should say would be free and available for -- for guests. It just depends on the number of people that are going to be there using the pool. They have guests coming to the pool. In theory most of the pool use and clubhouse is going to be for the residents and so they don't necessarily need to drive their cars over to those areas. There is -- those could be designated as visitor parking spaces only adjacent to that. I know that 16 is the number that you're looking for, but that -- that is something that you could consider as what the code would require for the units. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 62 of 69 Fitzgerald: So, you're -- it's a commercial building, it's required to have those -- that much parking? Beach: You got it. Fitzgerald: So -- Hood: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Hood: While you guys continue to ponder the direction and I do agree with what's been said, I mean some clear direction for the applicant what you're expecting when they come back, right, just something to cons ider. I'm going to take it to a higher level for just a second. You have purview over the code; right? You mentioned that. You know, do we think this is underparked? Well, it's designed to code, so is our code wrong? I continually monitor this, too. I will just let you know -- I mean what we have on the books right now is kind of a hybrid of national standards versus kind of localized what's acceptable standard. It's -- you know, we do research what Boise is doing, in Nampa, and -- but we look nationally, too. It seems to be -- I will just -- from my perspective the ones that I have heard from code enforcement and police that tend to have the issue are when they -- they meet our minimum requirements, but some of their -- our options for providing some of them in carports or garages -- when it's garages that are being proposed, those tend to get taken up by stuff and not cars and that's typically where you tend to have a lot of the issues with parking spilling on the adjacent streets and adjacent subdivisions, because the -- the cars aren't being parked in those garages, although we count them as parking stalls. Here you have carports, which helps. I'm not saying there will be a problem. I don't know. I can't see the future. There may or may not be a problem. But we will continue to monitor that and if it continues to be a problem -- but the ones I'm aware of from code enforcement that's the condition, which isn't the condition here. Again, they have got carports and not the garages. And I'm not saying carports are better than garages, I'm just saying that's probably something to consider the next time you see a multi-family project, they got the minimums and garages, are you still concerned about that. And just one more quick thing -- and I'm not -- you're having a good dialogue, but just an -- some easy direction potentially could be, you know, the one bedroom units are where we have one and a half car parks per unit. Two, we are kind of in that same range, if you just say two per unit period, regardless of the number of beds, it's kind of in the range you guys are talking about, it's easy for them to calculate, it could figure out -- just to throw something out there that's kind of along where you guys are going anyways. But you get to decide. Fitzgerald: Caleb, thank you. Because I -- your point is well taken in regards to -- the challenges we have is people put stuff in garages. It's the same Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 63 of 69 conversation we just had last week -- or the last meeting. So, that being said, I think my concern still -- just the trash versus parking, but I don't think a two per unit direction is a bad thing, so -- Yearsley: No, I would be acceptable to two per unit and, then, I would request, given the number of trash units that they have not actually had Republic Storage -- or the trash people look at this. I would request that they have that reviewed prior to coming back before this meeting. Perreault: Prior to what? Yearsley: Have the trash company look at the plant to make sure they are with the trash enclosures and the number and the size prior to coming back. I think we ought to have it continued and have it looked at before we make a decision on it. Fitzgerald: I tend to agree with you. Yearsley: And that way we can condition that they actually have the trash people look at it prior to coming back before the conditional use permit and update the parking. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli? Cassanelli: I -- I would agree. I would hate to see losing the green space that they have, so -- for the sake of the parking. Fitzgerald: And I agree. It's hard. Tough one. Perreault: I move to continue file number H-2017-0077 to the hearing date of -- Fitzgerald: C.Jay, do you have guidance for us? Beach: The 20th is the next Planning and Zoning. Perreault: Is that enough time? Fitzgerald: By the 20th? Yearsley: Or you want to move it to the 3rd to give them a little bit more -- Perreault: I think so. To the hearing date of August 3rd, 2017, for the following reasons: So, that Republic trash company can review this plan and determine if there is additional trash enclosures needed and, then, the applicant has an opportunity to review the parking, see if there is any possible way to add additional parking to the project. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 64 of 69 Fitzgerald: So, I think the applicant would like to do it faster if they can. Do we have a problem with that? Perreault: I move to continue file number H -2017-0077 to the hearing date of July 20th, 2017. Fitzgerald: Is that -- Yearsley: Now, are we going to give them direction that we want two parking stalls per each unit? Is that -- Perreault: Yes. Fitzgerald: That was our general -- okay. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: So, that included the Republic Storage -- or Republic trash and the guidance of two -- targeting two -- okay. Perreault: Yes. Fitzgerald: Motion and second. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. Appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Intermountain Gas Map Amendment (H-2017- 0089) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Change the Future Land Use Map Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Industrial (IND) on Approximately Sixty (60) Acres of Land for the Purpose of Updating the Map to Reflect the Intermountain Gas LNG Storage Plant Fitzgerald: Okay. Last, but not least, I'd like to open the public hearing on H- 2017-0089. Caleb, are you staying around for this one? That was -- Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Oh. Yearsley: Before we go forward with this -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 65 of 69 Fitzgerald: Yes. Yearsley: Can I -- I want to just declare -- I actually do work with Intermountain Gas and, actually, at this facility, but I do not believe the -- what they are asking for benefits my job or any of that, so I don't -- I don't feel that there is a conflict, but I at least wanted to declare that I do do work for Intermountain Gas. Fitzgerald: I have no issue. Does anybody else have an issue? Thank you for the declaration. Caleb, go forth, sir. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. And just to clarify, we are going to be -- I mean it's on my title slide. It is regarding Intermountain Gas's property, but they have not applied. Mr. Ben Marconi is in the audience. He does also work for Intermountain Gas -- not also. He works for Intermountain Gas directly and he has been consulted on this application, but the city is the applicant for the subject application. So, the application before you is a change to the future land use map. You can see on the left-hand side the current designation as far as 60 acre property currently designated low density residential. Their mailing address is 4014 North Can-Ada Road. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. As you can see it's accessed off of Can-Ada just south of McMillan -- about a quarter mile south of McMillan Road. The proposal is to change that designation, then, from low density residential to industrial. So, you can see that on the right-hand side of this exhibit some of the reasons for this change. Back in 2008 the city added this area -- actually, it's four square miles and some area north up to the Boise River north of Chinden into our area of city impact. It was designated low density residential. At that time, I will be honest with you, I don't know that anyone knew that this facility was out there. I was in a different position with the city. I know I wasn't aware of it until years later. Became aware of it and we said low density residential in and around this property doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you start looking at that. Kind of simultaneously we have had another effort -- actually it has a couple of different names. I will use the PC name for you all. But it was originally known as the Fields District, kind of this area out here. It sort of morphed into what we are calling right now Growing Together. So, growing Nampa and Meridian together. How we are going to grow together. There is a group of stakeholders that have been identified that -- that they are talking about currently what that looks like as our communities continue to grow towards the county lines together. So, that effort is going on and it's time consuming. Progress is being made, but it's slow and I am not very patient sometimes and it 's -- it didn't seem appropriate to let this low density residential designation continue to hang out there and mislead people that, one, it will ever transition to low density residential and, two, people are starting to buy up land kind of in this general vicinity and speculate that city limits are coming that way and so we needed to , I felt, disclose that on our future land map at least if you look at a map and you see something that says, you know, industrial there, it should raise the red flag and you go why is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 66 of 69 there gray in the middle of all this green and yellow? What's going on there? So, you at least ask the question. So, this is somewhat of a placeholder. It's not the end all be all. There is that Growing Together-Fields District that's going to eventually come forth with recommendations that's going to have to involve larger stakeholders, kind of this four square mile area and even beyond, depending on what types of recommendations they come up with . There is an ag flavor to that group. It's not about ag preservation, but it is sort of like we talked about before, Sky Mesa, there is heritage about farming and so are there land uses that we can do that play on that heritage. Maybe agriculture and technology coming together. Can we support a business park out in this area that is ag tech research type of things? So, those are the types of things they are looking at. But, again, that to me -- it's taking longer than -- I'm not leading that effort, but it's taking longer than I would have hoped. But, again, this sort of sets the stage for additional changes around this area . When we first set out to talk with stakeholders we sent out mailers to people roughly within three quarters of a mile of this property to say, hey, this kind of target area -- but this we are open to changes in the general vicinity of this. We have talked about a halo area kind of around this of about 1,000 feet, to say, you know what, people living within 1,000 feet of this use isn't very appropriate. Let me go back. I'm going to push pause here real quick. So, what's out there then? It's a seven million gallon liquified natural gas facility. Built in '70s. Possible future expansion, although that doesn't look like that's currently the case, but it looks like the tank is going to be there, because there is a regionally serving gas pipeline that runs through the intermountain west and serves, you know, this whole area. So, this -- this or some similar type of facility will most likely be on this property for genera tions to come. I mentioned that it was added to our planning area in 2008 with the designation. But just, again, wanted to set that -- seven million gallon liquified natural gas facility. I don't think the concern is so much that if there were some incident out there that, you know, the explosion -- it starts a big fire, but it is gas that, you know, doesn't smell very good, but aside from a major catastrophe, they do have just ongoing uses with lights and noise, you know, testing alarms and things like that that just aren't real conducive to people living in the general vicinity. So, I'm going to stop short of calling it a hazard, but it kind of has those tendencies -- a hazardous kind of type tendency. So, again, that's some of the justification for the change from low density to industrial change and, then, again, with a potential for additional changes. So, back to where I pressed pause. We open that up to additional property owners in this area and we said, hey, we think we need to change a least this area, this 60 acre parcel. What -- what does it look like to you all as the property owners in this area as far as future land ? How do you envision your land, including this one, developing? How do you envision this community -- kind of sub community developing? It's kind of a mixed bag. We got some people that were interested in residential , some that liked a mixed use designation. Some that like their one or two or five acre property and really didn't want to see much change at all. We had that in person meeting with folks - - that was on February 27th, we had that -- a public involvement meeting to kind of engage -- engage folks in this general vicinity and, then, we followed that up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 67 of 69 with an online survey with -- I don't remember, it was like four or five options that had some -- you know, again, some mixed use nonresidential around it, which is the same designation we use around the wastewater treatment plant. Some more industrial potentially in this area. We didn't get a whole lot of people participating in the online comments or written comments back to us on those. There is diversity in the options chosen. There wasn't a clear direction. So, we said, all right, we are going to kind of push that to the side and let the bigger Growing Together-Fields District come up with a recommendation and, then, we will talk about this some more in another year or whatever. And talk about, okay, what do the land uses in this greater four square mile area look like in whole. But, again, we felt it important to move forward with at least this change . Is it a great solution? No. But I think it's better than what we currently have and, again, it serves some purpose to disclose to anyone looking at our map that there is this industrial user out there and sets the stage I think to look at potential changes north and south and certainly to the east. We don't control Nampa , what they do. But they were at the meeting in February as well. Some more changes in the future. So, I think with that in summary of our involvement in this point in getting to this recommendation, again, it's not grandiose, it's not the end all, be all, but I think it's a good placeholder for as long as it takes to do the full evaluation and work with the stakeholders, underlying property owners to figure out a long term land use plan for this area. So, with that, Mr. Chair, I would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Caleb, so does Intermountain Gas own that whole 60 acres? Is that one swath theirs completely? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I believe that's the case. I didn't look to see if it's a separate LLC or what the actual name of the property is. They do least own some additional properties, I believe, kind of around it. I can't remember exactly that relationship. Again, Mr. Marconi is here and he could -- I'm sure he could answer that. Not to put him on the spot, but I'm sure he could answer that question with more assurance that I am. Fitzgerald: And my -- I -- I want to commend you, because I think -- I mean whether we are -- when you asked Nampa to come get involved in this process, let them know -- but, obviously, we don't want to build residential right around that area I wouldn't think. Not for the infrastructure that we have there or not for -- for the potential hazard that's there, too. So, I think it's great that we are stepping up and doing this. So, there is certainty for people who are going to want to either purchase land or start developing out there. I hope that everybody can speed up and figure out what they want to do for long term . But are there any other questions for Caleb? Perreault: No. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 68 of 69 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I do believe that the Intermountain Gas does own all 60 acres, because we have done some conditional use modifications out there. I do also know that the property just to the south of there is actually owned by Circle H, that they have their construction company -- Fitzgerald: Their yard is out there. Yeah. Yearsley: -- that's where their headquarters are at. So, it's actually not a bad use right next to that facility. So, no, I think it makes sense to have that be considered industrial. Fitzgerald: And I think Mr. Marconi gets to come up -- because he's -- but he's nodding that they do own that land, so -- I was going to hit about past baseball discretions, but he doesn't have to talk I guess. Anything else for the good of the order? Caleb, thank you. Having said -- is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify on this application ? Everybody looks tired and stone faced. So, that being the case, I would entertain a motion on -- to close the public hearing on H-2017-0089. Cassanelli: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Motion? I think it makes sense based on what's there. Yearsley: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0089 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2017, with no modifications. Cassanelli: Second. Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 69 of 69 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Mr. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Cassanelli: Second. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Yea. We are adjourned. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:33 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED =-VtEE-CHAIRMAN Rh o aO a- ATTEST:: C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK -�--I 2-01 DATE APPROVED GO�PTCsDwtic - OI dy G �u Q ,(' City of IDAHD y" SEAL F � mr�R °� ray zaE�S°Q�