Loading...
2018-08-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 16, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance ___X___ Lisa Holland ___X___Steven Yearsley _______ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald ___X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on August 16th, 2018, with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There have been no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Cassinelli: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 2 of 48 McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one item on the Consent Agenda and that is to approve minutes for the August 2nd, 2018, Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Belveal Subdivision (H-2018-0076) by TTS Development, LLC, Located at 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. 1. Request: Rezone property from L-0 (1.494 acres) to C-C; and 2. Request: Short Plat consisting of two (2) commercial building lots on 1.33 acres if land in a proposed C-C zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification to Development Agreement to change from those uses allowed within the L-O zoning district to those allowed within the C-C zoning district Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 3 of 48 McCarvel: So, at this time I would like the record to reflect that Commissioner Yearsley is present. Yearsley: Sorry for being late, Madam Chair. McCarvel: We will let it slide just this once. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0076, Belveal Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor -- Chair. Excuse me. Members of the Commission. The next -- or the first application before you tonight is a request for a rezone and a short plat. This site consists of 1.49 acres of land. It's zoned L-O, located at 385 South Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is rural residential properties, zoned R-1 in Ada county. To the east is Locust Grove Road and single family residential properties, zoned R-15. To the south is vacant and developed commercial properties zoned C-G and to the west is industrial properties, zoned I-L. This property was annexed back in 1999 with the requirement of a development agreement, which has been modified since that time. A daycare center currently operates in the existing building at the west end of this site. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A rezone of 1.49 acres of land from the L-O to the C-C zoning district is proposed consistent with the mixed use community future land use designation. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with two commercial buildings, associated parking areas, and driveway access via South Locust Grove Road. Conceptual elevations were also submitted for the future buildings on the site. A short plat is proposed consisting of two building lots on 1.33 acres of land in the proposed C-C zoning district. There is one existing structure on the west portion of this site that I mentioned that's the daycare right now that will be retained until redevelopment occurs at some point in the future. The concept plan demonstrates how the site may redevelop upon removal of that structure. One driveway access exists to this site via South Locust Grove Road, which is proposed to remain and provide access to both of the proposed lots. Because local street access is not available, the UDC requires the property owner to grant cross-access ingress-egress easements to adjoining properties. Therefore, staff is recommending a cross-access easement and driveway stubs are provided to the property to the north and to the south. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer and sidewalk exists along Locust Grove in accord with UDC standards and modification to the existing development agreement is proposed to update the uses allowed on the property from those allowed in the L-O district to those allowed in the C-C district, consistent with the proposed rezone request. Staff is recommending new provisions are included in the agreement that require a future development of the site to substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and building elevations associated with this application and the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. The Commission is not a recommending body on that application, that's just for information purposes for you. Written testimony has been received from Kent Brown, the applicant's representative, and they are in agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 4 of 48 with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. And I think Sonya has covered everything, unless you have a specific question that you would like me or the applicant answer. I don't know what else to really tell you. We are looking to have flex space buildings. He has a construction business and he would like to have his office there and have clients come to meet them and talk about building a house. The back part, like most flex space buildings, has a garage door, but that's not what you would see from the street. Other than that I don't know what else I can really tell you about the -- the landscape berm is in most of the improvements have already been installed, other than what would be the asphalt around the building and parking stalls and so forth that would be there, but in the previous applications the -- the berm was put in. We need to put in a fire hydrant and we need to put in a streetlight and we are more than willing to do that and have understood that, so -- McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Brown: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Chris, did we have anybody signed in for public testimony? Johnson: Madam Chair, no one has signed in. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anybody in the room at this time that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Come forward. As you approach the mic just give your name and address for the record. Smith: Robert R. Smith. 335 South Locust Grove Road. I own the property that adjoins this on -- it would be his north boundary and my south -- south boundary. McCarvel: Okay. Smith: I have lived there since 1966. He has not been a very good resident for me. He -- every year I have got to call him to get the weeds -- or call the code enforcer to have the weeds removed and he's developed this property -- can I come forward -- McCarvel: Don't speak until you get back to the mic, because he can't get it on the record. We can pass them from here. Okay. Smith: All of his wastewater runs off of his property onto me. It has run into my shop in those pictures right there. I consulted with him. He ignored the situation and has not done a thing to his fence. I would like to have a berm on that -- that property line of his, plus a four foot fence down the -- our property, so we could be screened from him. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 5 of 48 McCarvel: Okay. Smith: So, if -- if we could make that statement to where it would be enforced I would really appreciate it. According to the Meridian code enforcer, Meridian has no ruling on runoff water of an adjacent property to anyone. So, I couldn't even get any help from Meridian when this all happened. The county, at the time they widen Locust Grove Road has a drain for our irrigation that runs on his property and they left him a bid for that. I told him about it when he hauled all that fill in there to where he ought to leave that open to where he could get his water -- the runoff into that drainage, but nothing's happened. McCarvel: Okay. Smith: That's been quite a while ago. McCarvel: Okay. Smith: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this application tonight? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Brown: We have a -- McCarvel: Name and address for the record. Sorry, Kent. Brown: Oh. 3161 East Springwood. Ken Brown. We have -- if you look at the site plan, we have a large green space that is along that northerly boundary separating the two of us. We also have a sidewalk that goes along there. I understand that that run off -- it took place during the huge snow that we had and -- and, yes, some water did go down onto his property at that time. He's had issues with the weeds. This makes us -- I mean we are putting in lawn and asphalt and making all of that area that he's concerned about and generally code enforcement's come out and hasn't asked my client to do anything, because he's already in the process of doing it and it's kind of like I'm in charge of the berm on our neighborhood and we have got some goat heads next to our pumphouse and the maintenance guy notifies me and, you know, you are out there trying to take care of it and -- but weeds are weeds and it just keeps coming back, but this will help I think mitigate the situation between the two neighbors. McCarvel: So, your landscape shows the -- all water running towards -- Brown: We -- we are required -- McCarvel: -- his current property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 6 of 48 Brown: -- with any of the applications to keep any water on our site and we will do that. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair, what about the fence? McCarvel: Yeah. Is it amenable for a fence or -- come to the microphone. Sorry. Brown: We are planning on fencing that northerly boundary. McCarvel: Okay. And what kind of fence is that going to be? Belveal: It will either be a six foot dog eared cedar or vinyl. McCarvel: State your name and address for the record. Belveal: Brent Belveal. 745 North Ralston Street in Meridian. McCarvel: Okay. Belveal: It will either be six foot dog eared cedar or six foot vinyl. McCarvel: Okay. Belveal: Down that north property line. McCarvel: Okay. Belveal: Front to back. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Belveal: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2018-0076? Cassinelli: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0076. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 7 of 48 McCarvel: I think this is going to be a nice addition to what's right now bare ground and clean that space up nicely. I'm in favor of it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner. Cassinelli: Question for -- for staff. What was -- what was the feedback, if any, from ACHD having that access to Locust Grove so close to Watertower? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Cassinelli, the existing driveway, it's -- it's there. It's already -- they didn't make any changes to it. Cassinelli: Okay. Even with the -- with requiring access through the neighboring developments they -- they don't want to eventually see that closed off? Didn't have a concern on that? Allen: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The cross-access or -- Cassinelli: It -- there is the cross-access that's going to be going in to the -- to the south; is that correct? McCarvel: South and north. Allen: That -- that's what's in the recommendation now, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. And to the north eventually? Allen: Yes. Uh-huh. Cassinelli: Okay. With -- with those -- with those accesses what I'm asking is -- is ACHD, once those go through, are they re -- they are not requiring the closure of that -- the driveway to Locust Grove? That will remain there? Allen: That will remain, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. And they didn't -- they don't have an issue with that? Allen: No. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. I will just make a comment. That would be -- I like the project. They are, you know, looking to landscape it and fence in the neighbor to the north if ACHD doesn't have a -- my only concern is that access and the proximity to Watertower, but I will defer to ACHD and if they don't have an issue with that, I'm -- I think I'm good with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 8 of 48 McCarvel: Any other thoughts? No other discussion, would someone like to make a motion? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file -- file number H-2018-0076 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16, 2018, with staff's recommendation. Holland: Second. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on file H-2018- 0076. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Allen: Madam Chair, may I just clarify the motion, please. McCarvel: Sure. Allen: Was there any changes to the staff recommendation? McCarvel: No. I don't believe so. Cassinelli: No. McCarvel: He said with staff recommendations. Allen: Thank you. B. Public Hearing for Verasso Village North (H-2018-0071) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3471, 3513, 3543 and 3561 E. Tecate Ln. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 68 residential units on 1.698 acres of land in the C-G zoning district McCarvel: At this time we would like to open the public hearing for item H-2018-0071, Verasso Village North and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 9 of 48 Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application is a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.7 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 3471, 3513, 3543, and 3561 East Tecate Lane. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is commercial property, Culver's restaurant and Les Schwab tires, zoned C-G. To the south is multi-family -- previous phases of Verasso Village, zoned C-G. To the east is Records Avenue and a church, zoned R-8. And to the west is developed commercial properties zoned C-G. This property was annexed back in 2005 and included in the Una Mas Subdivision. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, which has been subsequently modified. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family development, consisting of 64 dwelling units on 1.7 acres of land in a C-G zoning district. The number of units has been reduced from the original application submittal from 68 to 64. This is the fourth phase of Verasso Village multi-family development. It differs from previous phases in that all of the units will be located within one structure, rather than two units in each structure. The development is proposed to consist of 14 one bedroom and two bedroom units. The gross density for the development is 37.65 units per acre, consistent with that desired in the mixed use regional designated areas. The applicant would like the flexibility to construct either a three or four story structure. The number of units would stay the same either way. The amount of common area would increase if a four story structure is built. Parking is located under the units on the ground floor, as shown on the site plan before you. Private usable open space, common area, and site amenities are provided in accord with UDC standards. An interior courtyard with fountains is proposed as shown on the second floor and an open grassy area along the west boundary of the site, which also serves as an emergency access -- is proposed similar to that in previous phases. A minimum of 121 parking spaces are required. A hundred and forty-five spaces are proposed, for a total of 24 additional spaces beyond those required. A 20 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Records Avenue. An attached sidewalk already exists along Records. Conceptual building elevations and a rendering were submitted as shown for the proposed structure. Building materials are proposed to consist of stucco, with either cement or wood siding, and metal accents. The final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Chad Olsen, the applicant, submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval with conditions. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? We don't have -- Allen: I'm not sure where the applicant is. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone here to testify on this application? Johnson: Madam Chair, nobody has signed in. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 10 of 48 McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody in the room tonight that would -- that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. I guess the applicant won't be coming back forward. So, at this time do we want to close and discuss on what we have got or continue it? Yearsley: Madam Chair, my recommendation would be to continue, because I have questions and I'm not ready to move this forward without -- McCarvel: Right. Yearsley: -- answers. McCarvel: All right. Perreault: I agree. McCarvel: Can we have a motion then? Cassinelli: Do we close the public hearing first? Yearsley: No. McCarvel: No. Yearsley: The public hearing is still open. McCarvel: Yeah. It's open, because we will -- we will join it back at that point. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move to continue file number H-2017-0071 to the hearing date of September 6, 2018, for -- the applicant wasn't -- because the applicant was not here to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Perreault: I second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0071. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Zions Bank Drive Through (H-2018-0077) by Matt Huffield Located at 1767 W. Island Grove Rd. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a DriveThrough Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 11 of 48 Establishment within 300 Feet of Existing Residences McCarvel: Moving on. We will open the public hearing for H-2018-0077 and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Zion's Bank drive through. I am filling in for Josh this week. Just to let you know, the applicant is here this evening to discuss with you a conditional use permit for a drive through use, so I want to make it clear on the record that the bank is a financial institution in our code. That's a principally permitted use and the only reason why they are here before you this evening is to allow the -- the associated drive through use, because it's within 300 feet of an existing residence and another drive through that's proposed and been approved to be constructed on this site. The subject property is approximately one acre of land and it's currently zoned C-C. To the north we have a public street, Island Green Drive and residential properties in the county. East is vacant commercial property, which has been approved by the department in the Planning Division for a vehicle carwash facility, which is this L-shaped piece here. To the south we have West Chinden Boulevard and commercial property in Knighthill Center, zoned C-G. And, then, the west we have Einstein's Oilery that abuts this particular property. In 2014 this property did come before the Commission and ultimately got approved by Council to rezone it with the C-C zoning district. The project was called Chinden and Linder Crossing and it was approved to have a nine commercial -- or nine sub -- nine lot commercial subdivision on the site. As part of that approval the City Council did approve a development agreement modification, which also runs with the particular parcel and the subject site. The applications and the elevations that are before you this evening are found to be consistent with that recorded development agreement. So, here is the site plan that the applicant has shared with you and it's part of the staff report. I would mention that all of the -- the site plan and the landscape plan that's before you this evening is in compliance with UDC standards, not only for driveway widths, but also the specific use standards for drive throughs. The only exception to complying with code is the requirement for the landscape buffer along the west boundary of the site. So, what had happened was when Einstein Oilery went in they actually constructed a six foot wide landscape buffer alone that boundary. A portion on it falls on their property and a portion of it falls on this property. Well, after we wrote the staff report and had a condition of approval in the staff report, the applicant brought that to our attention and so they have asked us to modify that condition in the staff report and that would be Condition 4.A -- 4-A, excuse me, and how it currently reads -- it's requiring that they rip out the curbing and construct a five foot wide landscape buffer in accordance with the UDC standards. After staff had evalu -- had a chance to evaluate the proposal, we feel that the applicant can go through that alternative compliance process with staff. It's a staff level approval. And we can allow that buffer to remain as is with the addition of additional plantings and I think the application is going to share what their proposal will be as far as an alternative to allow that buffer to remain as is. So, if you -- the Commission so desires, I would ask that we do modify -- modify that condition as you take deliberation on this particular application. So, again, here is the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 12 of 48 landscape buffer -- or the landscape plan that was submitted. Again, everything is in compliance, except for -- again, if you can see my cursor here, this west boundary. Sample elevations were provided on this particular application, so we are looking at brick veneer, concrete lintels, glazing, sheet metal paneling on the roofing. So, a mix of materials. Keep in mind the applicant still has to come back to staff and get approval of their -- their final design, but in -- in general staff is supportive of the proposed elevations as you see this evening. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the subject. And, again, we are recommending approval with conditions and if it's your desire we ask that you modify Condition 4-A and as you deliberate I can share with you how we want that to read. With that I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, can you go back to the site plan? Is there -- are they providing an escape lane or are they doing three bays for -- how is that configuration working? Parsons: Very good question, Commissioner Yearsley. Yes, the escape lane is the outer drive aisle here. So, if stacking occurs here, then, someone can get by and get out of the drive through per UDC standards. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, can you just -- can you reiterate on that landscape buffer between the proposal and the -- and the Einsteins Oilery. What is it supposed to be again and what is it -- it's five feet now. What -- what is it -- what are the requirements? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, the current code requires a minimum ten foot wide buffer, five on each property. Whichever one gets -- whichever development occurs first, that developer or that person that constructs bears the burden of putting in the trees. We don't tag the other property owner with the trees, because we don't want to have so many trees in that planter island that they won't grow and mature. Again, in this particular case a three foot -- a three foot buffer was constructed with Einsteins and, then, they built the other three on this property. But it actual -- the buffer width is actually five feet. So, it's going to be five feet deficient from what city code requires now. But, again, we have the ability of alternative compliance to allow that to remain as its constructed, if the applicant adds additional planters or does something equal to or better than what code requires. In these particular instances in my experience with it, we typically get more planning. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 13 of 48 what code requires -- and that seems to offset or mitigate some of those concerns that staff has. The other thing is is it's a good buffer between the different competing uses on the property and so we believe five feet is adequate separation between these two uses. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Huffield: Matt Huffield. Cole Architects. Address -- McCarvel: If you can pull that mic just a little closer. There you go. Huffield: Address 1008 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho. McCarvel: Thank you. Huffield: The -- the proposed project -- I think there was a little confusion in the width. I think the total width is currently six feet and it's supposed to be ten feet. So, we are two feet short, not five feet short on our side. McCarvel: Okay. Huffield: And we will be adding additional landscaping per the requirement as requested. Overall the project -- I think it's a C-C zone. It's an improved use in the zone. It's filling in of the development that's already there. I think there is also a Carl's Jr. going in next -- two lots down. That's already been approved. There is a car wash right next to us. And so I think it's a -- it's a valid use in that zone. We -- we have designed the building and the -- the drive through such that it -- it works well with the -- the property and the street frontage. We push it as far away from the residential area as possible, so it is buffered from that. There is significant landscaping in that area and parking as well. So, it's -- it is protecting the resident's area as best we can. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: And you are in agreement with the staff report, besides that one condition? Huffield: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 14 of 48 McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Where is the access -- what's the road there? Where is the access to West Island Green Drive? And, Bill, if you can show us on your -- on the -- where the access to the -- to the proposed -- the drive through. Huffield: It's right where the -- we actually come across the -- so, you come in front of Einstein's and, then, come over to the shared access Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Huffield: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have anyone signed up for public testimony on this? Johnson: Madam Chair, we had one person sign in. Andrew Lawrence. McCarvel: And please state your name and address for the record. Lawrence: Andrew Lawrence. 1685 West Brandt Lane, Meridian. McCarvel: Okay. Lawrence: My -- my only real question that I have is where are the entrances to the drive through and the exit? I would think that would be a real important thing to bring up and it -- it hasn't been brought up and I -- I can't tell from this picture. McCarvel: Bill, could you go back to that picture or -- there we go. Can you see the arrows where it comes in -- Parsons: Or can you see my cursor? McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: The arrow on the mouse? So, basically, they should share access with -- Lawrence: Okay. The entrance and exit is north and south? Parsons: That's the entrance. Yes. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 15 of 48 Lawrence: Okay. And that is for the drive -- Parsons: So, the drive through -- yeah. Lawrence: Oh, I see. It goes around. Parsons: Yeah. It would come in from the west -- Lawrence: And exit north? Parsons: Or south. Yeah. And, then, come back through and, then, head back out. Lawrence: Is there any type of a berm to protect the residents? The reason I ask that is Idaho Central is -- has a beautiful berm. We used to see headlights until the berm filled in -- or I should say the trees and it's not a problem anymore, but it comes right in our house before they -- they grew out. I don't want that to be a problem with this and that is -- from the original picture of where it is structured on the lot -- I am to the eastern and north -- I am right at the entrance where they come off of Linder and pull into that lot. Ah, there we go. I'm right on the corner there and -- McCarvel: On that cul-de-sac or the -- close to Brandt Lane? Lawrence: Pardon me? McCarvel: On the entrance at Linder and Brandt or in the cul-de-sac? Lawrence: Both of them. The entrance to Brandt Lane and to the commercial lot where this is -- yeah. McCarvel: So, you are the lot -- Lawrence: West Island Green -- well, my concern -- I -- I'm a little protected there, so I shouldn't be whining about it, but we have two other residents, possibly three, that will be victims of this. McCarvel: Yeah. I think the drive through itself is clear on the other end of the lot. Lawrence: Yeah. Where you can see the C there on the edge, that's the -- my understanding is where the exit is and it's aimed right at the -- between the B and the W on West Brandt Lane on this map. McCarvel: That's on the other side of that -- Lawrence: No. I'm using that as a reference point. But it just -- it concerns me and I felt that it should have been dealt with and perhaps we can get the people up here to explain it a little further. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 16 of 48 McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- Lawrence: It's not that difficult to put a wall -- a four or five foot wall up around an abutment to protect people, but if that's the exit that is going to be a problem. McCarvel: Bill, can you elaborate, again, and what the landscape is on that end there up against Island? Yearsley: He can -- McCarvel: Yeah. We will have the applicant address it. Thank you. Lawrence: Thank you very much. Yearsley: Madam Chair, did we ask if anybody else wanted to testify? McCarvel: Oh. I'm sorry. Was there anybody else in the room that wished to testify on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Huffield: Yes. Matt Huffield. 1008 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho. Could you pull up the landscape plan? So, I think there is a couple things going on here that may not be relevant just from the plan is in the northeast corner if a vehicle is coming out there -- first of all, there is a trash enclosure there that is a six foot high wall -- CMU brick wall that -- McCarvel: Okay. Huffield: -- will block most of the light. There is also a row of hedges across there that will block the remainder of it. So, I think from a light standpoint -- pollution standpoint from vehicles, I think it's minimal and I think that the landscaping along the street is already in place, but that may not be the case. But the landscaping you are putting in along that area is how much? Is -- Huffield: I think they are probably a three or four foot row of hedges. McCarvel: Okay. Huffield: So, it should be enough to -- to block vehicular lighting. McCarvel: Block the light. Huffield: And, then, again, the -- the corner that he's concerned about there, there is the trash enclosure there that will block it one hundred percent. McCarvel: The six foot tall -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 17 of 48 Huffield: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, will you have an ATM drive through there? People might be coming through there after business hours? Huffield: Correct. There is an ATM drive through. Perreault: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Huffield: Thank you. McCarvel: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2018- 0077? Yearsley: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded and to close a public hearing for H-2018- 0077. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think this is a great fill in project and it's here before us because it's within 300 feet of another drive through and I think they have addressed keeping traffic away from that drive through and I think it flows nicely through there, along with -- I think it's sufficient mitigation with the fence and the landscaping there for headlights. Maybe a few taller bushes. I don't know. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, will you put up the landscaping plan. So, I think the architect has actually done a very decent job. One of the concerns was the ATM. If you look, the ATM typically sits I think in front of the building there and they have got a tree right in front of where -- so, hopefully, it would block a lot of that and so -- and where they have got Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 18 of 48 enough other shrubs and trees and stuff to the north, I think with that it should mitigate a lot of the concerns. I would recommend if the -- if the -- the gentleman who testified if he has more questions to -- to get with the architect afterwards and to -- to kind of discuss those options and -- and make that, but I think just for the drive through I think it's actually a fairly good location and they have done a fairly good job trying to mitigate any of those, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments or are we ready for a motion? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: And would say I tend to agree. I think they have -- they have done a good job of putting enough landscape buffers and especially with that trash enclosure that's six feet tall, I think that will help with some of the -- the light pollution coming through there. I'm ready to try and make a motion if everyone else is ready to go. McCarvel: Sure. Yearsley: Then, Bill, is there a use of bringing up -- excuse me, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yes. Yearsley: To bring up what we want it to say for that item 4-A? McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the way it's written now it just says the applicant shall construct a five foot wide landscape buffer along the west boundary in accord with UDC standards. So, if it's your desire for them to keep it the way it's constructed now, but add additional plantings, then, we can just modify that to say that they need to seek alternative compliance to deviate from the five foot requirement and, then, we can take care of it on our end to make sure that when they come in with their certificate of zoning compliance and design review that we will address it appropriately and make it match up with what's currently constructed. Yearsley: Thank you. Um, Madam Chair? I actually like the -- the smaller buffer right there between the two uses. I think it -- I think it serves its purpose to have the -- some -- some landscaping there, but not overwhelm the site. So, I would be in favor of that option. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2018-0077 as presented in the staff report for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 19 of 48 hearing date of August 16th, 2018, with the following modification: That we modify condition of approval 4-A to allow the applicant to submit an alternative compliance for the landscape buffer to deviate from the five foot requirement and work with staff on that. Yearsley: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0077 with modification of 4-A. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Whitecliffe Estates Subdivision (H-2018- 0074) by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located at 943 W. McMillan Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.6 Acres of Land to the R-4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 128 Single Family Residential Lots and 10 Common Lots on Approximately 40.6 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: At this time we will open the public hearing for item H-2018-0074, Whitecliffe Estates Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Cassinelli: Before we do that I just want to reiterate my -- from my e-mail earlier that I live within the 300 foot radius of this project, so I will -- I would like to stay up here and see the presentation, but I'm going to recuse myself. McCarvel: Okay. Everybody good with that? Cassinelli: As long as everybody's okay. I think I can be -- I think I can be fair, but based on the fact of just -- that I'm in the mail out and in the 300 foot radius, I think as far as -- as everybody's concerned and whatnot, I think it looks -- Yearsley: Well -- and I guess so -- so you are not going to vote on it, is that what it is? Cassinelli: That's -- that's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 20 of 48 Yearsley: So, if that's the case are they allowed -- because -- to stay here -- Cassinelli: Are we okay with -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yearsley: Okay. All right. Cassinelli: If you -- if you -- Yearsley: No, I -- Cassinelli: I can -- I can step down, too. Yearsley: -- I don't have a problem, but I know on projects that I have actually recused myself they actually had me to go outside to listen and not to be an influence. McCarvel: It was your project -- Yearsley: No, it wasn't my project -- McCarvel: Oh. Yearsley: -- I just -- so that's why -- I just want to make sure legally wise -- McCarvel: Yeah. No. I think you are fine. Yearsley: -- it's acceptable for him to stay there. Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Because I'm happy to -- I can -- I can hop on down, too. McCarvel: Yeah. No. You are fine. Cassinelli: Okay. And is everybody okay with that? Yearsley: Yeah. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: All right. Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, are you ready? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 21 of 48 McCarvel: Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: All right. Let's begin. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the Whitecliffe Estates Subdivision. The applicant here -- is here this evening to discuss annexation and a preliminary plat with you. The site consists of 40.6 acres of land currently zoned RUT in Ada county. Is located at 943 West McMillan Road on the south side of McMillan between Linder and Meridian Roads. So, it's not quite the mid mile, but it's maybe a quarter of a mile from -- east of Linder Road. There is no history on this particular property, as it's currently zoned and annexed in the county. The current comp plan -- Comprehensive Plan designation for the particular subject is a medium density residential and office. So, in our -- in our analysis of the staff report, at least our Comprehensive Plan analysis, we have tried to justify for you why we don't feel an office component is pertinent to the application and why residential is more suitable for it. So, you can see all on the east boundary here you see some office -- an office park. It's still pretty undeveloped at this point. There is only one office building in there, so because the Comprehensive Plan -- that designation on the Comprehensive Plan is not parcel specific, like a zoning designation is, staff feels that there is addition -- or sufficient office in this particular area, so we have recommended -- at least support the applicant's request for this particular 40 acres to be entirely R-4 residentially zoned property. So, the applicant is here, again, to annex the property. They are proposing a preliminary plat that consists of 128 building lots and ten common lots. They are requesting, again, the R-4 zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to be phased or developed in three phases. Staff has a recommended provision in the development agreement that the park and the associated amenities come in with the first phase. Something for you to take under consideration this evening. And the minimum lot size in the R-4 zoning district is 8,000 square feet and the plat before you complies with those standards. And, then, the gross density for the particular subdivision is 3.15 dwelling units to the acre. So, it's just right at that cusp of three to eight dwelling units to the acre and that medium density residential zoning designation. If you recall in the staff report staff did recommend that the applicant bring forth quite a few changes before you this evening. The applicant has obliged most of staff's request. The pedestrian connection has been included. The one lot that was substandard has been corrected to meet the minimum 8,000 square foot requirement. The easements have been referenced on the plat. The applicant has provided a pedestrian connection to the west -- the Crossfield Subdivision to the west located mid block between Lots 5 and 6 and they have also addressed staff's concerns with the long block length. They have agreed to doing some kind of -- a raised crosswalk here to provide traffic calming as we suggested and requested by staff. Probably the biggest concern or criticism from the applicant is the requirement for losing access to McMillan Road. I would mention to Commission that's -- that's something that our code requires us to do as part of our review of an application. Typically we look at surrounding developments and see what kind of stub streets are provided to a particular property. In this case you can see that there are four stub streets to this 40 acres, so in staff's opinion this is viable -- suitable access to this particular property and another access to McMillan Road is not required. I would mention to you that we did reach out to ACHD to try to gain their support on closure of that access point and they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 22 of 48 could not find any fault to deny the access and they did approve the applicant's request to -- to keep that access point to McMillan Road. So that's something the applicant certainly wants to discuss with you this evening. If you -- if you looked at the aerial you will see there is an existing structure and some outbuildings on this particular property. That will be removed with the first phase of development as well. So, again, the only access to the arterial roadway is the McMillan Street access as proposed by the applicant and, then, the four stub streets to the property will be extended with this subject property -- this subject development. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along McMillan Road, because it is an arterial roadway. You can see a lot of discussion in the staff report regarding what the ultimate look or the land -- how that's going to be landscaped in the future. As you can see we called out in the staff report that there is a fairly large irrigation canal that runs in front of that, the Lemp Canal, and, then, Idaho Power has some pretty significant power poles running through that and they have a 60 foot wide easement. But as I mentioned to you in my opening statement, the applicant has addressed those. What they have shown does fit within the context of those easements. They have reached out to those entities and they have communicated to her that what she's proposing is tentatively approved. So, it can work with -- the way they are showing it to you this evening. The applicant will be required to widen out McMillan Road. So, there is a question in our mind how that -- how the irrigation district will provide access to the Lemp Canal. Currently my discussions with the applicant she has indicated that they are planning on taking access or maintenance of that canal on the north side of it and not on the south, so she said they were willing to work with her, enter into a license agreement and allow her to landscape all the way up to the south bank of the Lemp Canal as part of her development. So, we are -- staff is fairly confident that she can meet the 25 foot requirement. We are not sure how it would look on the north side. Currently the way the code is written is anytime we widen the roads, if there is -- if the road is not going to be widened immediately, then, any surplus right of way is -- has a ten foot gravel shoulder and the rest is vegetated, so that when the roadway is widened we want to make sure that ACHD puts back in landscaping as part of the development, so we don't end up with this gravel or unlandscaped sections a roadway throughout our city. In this particular case McMillan Road will be constrained with that waterway. There is a Lemp -- they are -- it's going to be a three lane roadway, center turn lane and two -- two drive lanes and so there is a good chance there won't be a lot of gravel between the bank ditch and the right of way, so I'm not sure if we have some conditions that the applicant has to provide that gravel shoulder and maintain landscaping in front of that canal, but I don't know if it's going to be warranted in this case. So, the conditions we need to modify to make sure we get what we need from the applicant on that. As part of the request the applicant is requesting that Council grant -- or leave the Lemp Canal open, so they do not want to tile that, because it is a large facility. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the canal company went in and actually concrete lined that ditch, so water wouldn't be seeping, so there has been quite a bit of maintenance, attention to detail on this particular canal. Again, the City Council has the ability to waive the large -- these large facilities in this case and if you have ever driven down that segment of roadway you can see a -- that's pretty much open all the way along that south side of the canal -- or that south side of the road. The UDC does require a minimum of ten percent open space and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 23 of 48 applicant has -- is providing 4.78 acres of qualified open space in accordance with UDC standards. You can see half of that is the landscape buffer along McMillan Road. The large central park here with the tot lot and some internal pathways and, then, there is also more of a passive open space that links some of these blocks together to allow people to get to the park and, of course, with the addition of the micro path lot here that staff is recommending this evening. The applicant has provided you some sample elevations of what's expected to be constructed in that development. Again, in the R-4 zone there are minimum home sizes that you have to comply with, so a single story home there is a minimum 14,000 -- or, excuse me, 1,400 square foot minimum and, then, a two story home has to be a minimum of 1,600 square feet. So, we will note that on the building restriction form when they come in and subdivide their -- their phases. We did receive written testimony on this particular application. We received written testimony from Richard Kepler, had some concerns about traffic, and, then, we also received the applicant's response from Becky McKay and I will let her go over some of the items that she wants to address with you this evening. But I will let her get to her -- her testimony, let the public testify, and if there is any conditions you need me to -- to go through and have modified certainly happy to do that for you. Again, staff is recommending approval with the provisions of a development agreement. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this project, who is Todd Amyx and the -- the application says 4345 Linder Road, LLC, but that's -- that's who it is, Todd Amyx and, then, Mr. Brineger. This particular parcel, as Bill indicated, is just a little over 40 acres. It's surrounded by development. You have Paramount Subdivision to the north, which is R-8. Cobblefield to the west, which is R-8. Cedar Springs to the east, which is L-O and R-8. And, then, Baldwin Park to the south, which is R-8. As you can see from the aerial, this is an in-fill parcel that central services have been stubbed to the property. As Bill indicated, there are four local stub streets to this parcel and when we went to design the property, obviously, you know, from our perspective, based on the number of trips that will be generated, which is 1,208 vehicle trips per day at build out, we believe that the development warrants its own access to McMillan Road. We did do a traffic -- a traffic study done by Thompson Engineers. They determined 60 percent of the traffic will go east, 40 percent of the traffic will go west, and we do need to mitigate and build a turn lane at our entrance due to the volume that we will create. In my -- when I had the neighborhood meeting we had I think six or seven residents that attended. They seemed to like the density of the project, the size of the lots. Their primary concern was, obviously, traffic within their neighborhood. I made the comment to them that in our pre-application conference with the City of Meridian that staff would like us to not have our own independent access to McMillan and they said, well, we definitely object to that. In my meetings with ACHD, based on the Fox Run Way collector roadway into Paramount, that is 710 feet west of my approach. So, as far as meeting the standards for a minor arterial and an access to it, I meet all ACHD standards. I meet all site Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 24 of 48 visibility standards and I do not have a competing approach that is directly across from us, which makes for a safer -- safer approach to the arterial. Now, in -- in designing this I wanted to make sure that, one, we didn't create a situation where we had cut-through traffic coming through us from the other subdivisions, nor were we putting cut-through traffic into their development. So, I tried to design it to basically balance that traffic out and that was kind of the driving force of what's before you. As you can see, we have significant landscaping that is adjacent to McMillan Road. That's the Lemp Settlers Canal there. We have a 48 foot common lot there. As far as landscapable area up to top of bank is 35 feet. We will have a detached sidewalk on the south side, which is consistent with what they have done along that McMillan corridor where you have the Settlers Canal traversing parallel with McMillan. We have our central open space right there off our -- our island entrance. That is 2.44 acres. So, it's a very large central open space. There is going to be a pond, a playground area, picnic shelters and we have pathways that go through it linking the entire development. We have another pocket park that is located just south of that. That's approximately .64 acres. So, a little over half acre. We have pathways, grassy areas, and, then, we are going to have a yard shuffleboard facility there, so there will be an amenity within that. As Bill indicated, there is 4.11 acres of open space or what we consider eligible open space. So, we do exceed the ten percent required and here is kind of a blow up of that central open space. As you can see, we have pathways that come through -- where is my little -- there we go. So, we have micro paths and pathways that come through and lead down to the play area, the picnic area, and come down and there is another pathway that goes to the south. On our pocket park here we have pathways that go -- come in from the west and will take people up and over to the central common area and, then, a drop down micro path here. As you can see here are the stub streets that we propose. Ada County Highway District has asked us to do a stop control here at Bryce Canyon and Bird Drive. So, this will be a four way stop to slow traffic. Here, since we have a pedestrian pathway, we will do a raised pedestrian-friendly crossing, so the cars will have to slow down to go up and over and, then, we talked to ACHD about doing another one on this roadway. This is the plat that's before you. When we designed this our client Mr. Amyx liked the larger lots, so even though we are designated medium density residential, we are asking for a step down. We did not ask for R-8, we are asking for R- 4. Our density -- our gross density is 3.14 dwelling -- or 15 dwelling units per acre. Our lots will range from 8,000 -- and I have got one that's clear up to 17,000 square feet. Our average lot size in the project is 9,168 square feet. So, these are pretty good size lots. They vary in width from 70 to 75 and, then, of course, the corner lots are larger, they are like 85s and 90s and, then, they are all 115 feet deep. This kind of gives you an idea of the type of homes that Mr. Amyx and his building team build. They have built the -- you know, these throughout the valley. In Alpine Point. We did Decatur Estates off of Linder for them. They are, obviously, very attractive, since we -- they have a group and team of builders you get a good variety of architecture and a mix of materials and -- and good modulation. This is one of the models that Mr. Amyx has constructed that they put in the fall collection. Going through the conditions of approval, as Bill indicated the staff had asked for some clarification on our plat, which we did clarify the Idaho Power easement, that 60 foot easement, because there is a transmission line that runs along the south side of McMillan. We also delineated the Settlers easement for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 25 of 48 canal to make sure that, obviously, we can have an adequate area to construct our five foot sidewalk and landscaping. I was alarmed by the condition two under 1.1 -- oh, sorry. Item A, second bullet point, it said the applicant shall replace the proposed road access to West McMillan Road with a pedestrian connection that meets the requirements of the UDC. I did not make that change, because I do not feel that that is an appropriate modification. This project warrants the access. This will operate at a level of service C. If you go to Summit Way, which is in the Cedar Springs development that -- according to Ada County Highway District that collector roadway is operating at a level of service D. So, obviously, if we eliminate our access to McMillan, then, that will send more trips through these other developments, which, in my opinion, is not good planning and so we are objecting to bullet point number two. Bill asked me to put a pedestrian pathway to Cobblefield to the west. I did do that. The only thing that we are objecting to is it says that we shall work with the Cobblefield Crossing HOA to connect the pathways. That is easier said than done. Some of the HOAs are very easy to work with and some are not and so, then, what happens if we have an HOA that does not want to cooperate, then, I end up having a condition that I can't satisfy, because it says I shall. Now, I will be glad to make the attempt, but I just object to the word shall. I will put the ped path there, I would love the residents to have interaction. Pedestrian -- they have got open space and walkways over here, but sometimes they get very persnickety about other residents using their private open space that they pay for and so I ran across that before. Secondly, on item 1.1.3F, we were required to receive approval from Idaho Power and Settlers on our landscape improvements. It's premature at this process because neither agency will grant us approval until we give them construction plans and the final landscape design. I did have the landscape architect modify the landscape plan to incorporate staff's comments and restrict the type of trees that go along the McMillan corridor where we have the transmission lines to I think a type one, Bill, is that what we agreed upon? So, I guess I would like item 1.1.3F removed, because I -- it's impossible to -- to comply with that at this juncture. Other than that we feel we have got a really great project. It's low density. The lots around me are 4,500, 4,000 square feet, 6,500 square feet, 7,400 square feet, then, there is some lots over here that are in the seven and nine thousands. So, as far as adding another kind of lot size to this area, that's what we will be doing with that 9,000 square foot average, you know, providing a little bit of diversity and I think based on the Comprehensive Plan that's what it encourages is -- that we provide diversity and we have got the smaller lots, we have got the office component, and so staff has been supportive of -- of the overall proposal. The neighbors like the density. They like the bigger lots. And I will open up to questions. McCarvel: I have just one question for you, Becky. Which -- that second condition on -- that you shall work with the HOA, what -- what number was that? McKay: 1.1.1A, bullet point one. McCarvel: Okay. And so, then, the -- leaving the access to McMillan was what number? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 26 of 48 McKay: 1.1.1A, bullet point 2. McCarvel: Okay. McKay: And, then, I did submit responses. They -- they did come in today. I had two staff members out with the flu, so this week's been kind of crazy. So, it does, basically, outline in my August 16th letter that I provided to staff the conditions that we were asking for changes and the gravel condition up here on McMillan, because I just don't know if I'm going to have the room to do that based on the widening -- we will have to widen 17 feet from center line and -- and Settlers has lined that section of the Settlers Canal. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff -- or for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Becky, did you say the pedestrian path on the west side connects with some common area in Crossfield? McKay: Cobblefield? Yes. Perreault: Or Cobblefield. Excuse me. McKay: Yeah. If I -- Perreault: What is that? Okay. McKay: I will show you -- right here. Perreault: Okay. McKay: So, they have basically some linear open space and, then, they have -- it looks like a pathway that comes up and so our micro path is right there. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. McKay: But that is, like I said, private open space, so -- McCarvel: Any other questions? Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Madam Chair. Becky, so what is this open space on the upper right -- left- hand corner? McKay: Right here? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 27 of 48 Yearsley: Yes. McKay: That is the low point of the property and so that will be storm drainage. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: And as far as groundwater, the groundwater out in this area is at about nine to 11 feet. So, we anticipate we will have like seepage beds, not ponds. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: That's what -- what we want to install. Yearsley: So, on the bullet point 1.1A, so are -- about the -- you know, you shall coordinate, are you just wanting that condition removed all together or just taking the shall out? McKay: I guess I'd like to take the shall out. I -- I don't -- I will be glad to contact them, but if they -- if they won't allow the fence to have a gap in it, then, it's a micro path to nowhere. Yearsley: Right. McKay: And I had that happen at Isola Creek. We did -- we did a micro path, because the staff wanted us to try to make interconnectivity to Bridgetower and we went to the Bridgetower homeowner association and they said we are not -- you build your path, but we are not taking the fence down. So, we built the path, spent the money, and it goes into a fence. So, I guess I don't want that to happen again. Yearsley: Okay. So, if we are -- if the -- if you couldn't get access to it what you're asking for is that pathway to be removed -- McKay: Yes. Yearsley: -- is what I understand. McKay: I mean it would serve no purpose. Yearsley: Right. McKay: I would rather just put the area back into the lots and spend the money on amenities than on a pathway to nowhere. Yearsley: Okay. And you don't need that pathway for a block length or anything like that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 28 of 48 McKay: No. Yearsley: Is that correct? McKay: No. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: Because we have got -- we have these two sub streets right here. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: And, plus, that's the perimeter there. Yearsley: Right. McKay: Now, it was not put there from block length. Yearsley: Okay. On the 1.1.13F, the receive approval for the landscaping plans, you want that one removed all together or do you -- do you want to just say at the time of construction or -- I mean what -- what are your -- just trying -- I'm just trying to get clarification to make sure, you know -- McKay: On the 1.1.3A we did restricted the class -- class one trees along the transmission lines. We are fine with that. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: It was the -- the second portion where grass or gravel on the north side of the Lemp will be installed because that's their access. Yearsley: Right. McKay: See, Settlers' accesses the Lemp Canal from McMillan. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: So, that's why they haven't required that any of the developments build an access road on the south and have allowed us with license agreements to grass right up to the top of bank, which gives it a lot better, you know, appeal when you drive down McMillan Road. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: So, I can't do anything that Settlers won't allow me to do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 29 of 48 Yearsley: Right. No. I understand that. I was actually talking about 1.1.13F, the receive approval for the landscaping plan from the irrigation and the Idaho Power. McKay: Yeah. It's not possible to do that at the preliminary plan stage. Yearsley: Okay. Preliminary plat. Okay. McKay: Correct. Yearsley: So, my question is could we actually make that at final design or at construction or something and, then, at preliminary plat? McKay: Yeah. Final plat. At final plat. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: Yeah. Like prior to final plat's signature obtain Settlers and Idaho Power approval for the landscape plan adjacent to their facilities. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: That would be totally acceptable. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Johnson: Madam Chair, we had one person sign in. Jody McMillan. McCarvel: Okay. McMillan: I am Jody McMillan. 2672 West Tenuta, Meridian. I'm here as a parent of 200 students and most importantly as the PTA president of Hunter Elementary. This new subdivision I'm asking the board to deny. It's going to have 128 homes, which at least will have 50 something kids going into Hunter. Our school was built for 650 students. We are currently at 789. For an elementary school that is not appropriate. It's not safe. We do not have the room for more students. There are already several subdivisions that are being built right now have already been approved, that is going to bring more students to Hunter Elementary, because no other school around us also has room. Paramount is at 550. They are about to get all the apartment buildings. Prospect is at 750 also and they are having CBH building right near them. It is time for the City of Meridian to stop planning for the future residents and start focusing on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 30 of 48 ones that are here now. We are jeopardizing the future and the safety and education of our children by overcrowding them at schools that cannot possibly keep up with this growth. I asked you to consider this, pass it, put it on to future after the new school is built and we can see, then, how many students we have. But right now we have no more room at Hunter Elementary. Thank you. McCarvel: I have one question for you. When is that school scheduled to be built? McMillan: We were told 2021 possibly. McCarvel: Okay. McMillan: West Ada does currently own land near Sellers Park. It was supposed to be an elementary school that all of those subs would funnel into. Baldwin Park. Cedar Springs. This subdivision. That would be perfect. That would alleviate everything. But there is no plan to build there for right now. McCarvel: Thank you. Is that all that signed in? Johnson: That was all that signed in. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. I have always worked closely with the Meridian School District or West Ada School District. I have had a lot of middle schools, elementaries, high schools in my projects throughout my 28 years. Hunter Elementary, that's the one in Bridgetower. That was part of -- I did the Bridgetower development. Obviously, we are straining the school system. I have met with Joe Yochum. We have been -- he's -- he's been active trying to plan for more sites. I know they are planning -- they just passed their bond for the new Owyhee High School that's coming through as an annexation. I'm doing an elementary north of Eagle. So, you know, the private sector, we are trying to have those private-public partnerships to make sites available to the school district. Some of them are at cost. Some of them are full donations. The north Meridian area has really, you know, grown rapidly and they do need some new schools out here, but we just can't shut growth off and say until you build a new school, you know, they -- they basically have indicated in their response, you know, they can't guarantee that the kids in this development will be able to attend the schools that are nearest them, because they are, obviously, juggling some of these schools. Now, what Joe's told me is they are going to start building some smaller schools, but more numerous, that some of the elementaries are too large and there is kind of, I guess, a happy medium as far as the number of students. But I'm doing everything I can to help the district. I just want to let you know that. Thank you. McCarvel: Becky, how -- how long until this is all built out? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 31 of 48 McKay: This is a three phase project. Mr. Amyx will probably -- do phase one next year and, then, probably phase two would be in 2020 and, obviously, depending on the market, phase three may be in 2020 or maybe 2021. If things slow, interest rates go up or the economy starts to falter a little bit, obviously, you know, it's -- it's based on demand. McCarvel: Okay. McKay: I think Decatur Estates -- I think it was of similar size and number of lots and I think we did it in three years. A little -- maybe a little bit less. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, did the school district actually -- so, they -- they submitted, I'm assuming, the standard letter, but they didn't say that we can't handle the growth or we don't want the -- you know, they didn't come actually out and say anything against this project; correct? McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, no, they just say new residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to available classrooms across the district. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: And that they encourage us to provide safe walkways, bike paths, but nowhere in this letter does it basically state that this should be denied. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: And -- and staff has us constructing all the sidewalk and landscaping adjacent to McMillan and we showed it in our first phase. So, we will make that connection to get that safe route to schools. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. All right. Thank you. So, at this time can I get a motion to close a public hearing on H-2018-0074, Whitecliffe Estates Subdivision. Holland: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 32 of 48 Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0074. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I will just start off by, yea, R-4. Sorry. I think they have done a good job of working with staff on getting some of the issues addressed and I guess I will just start off with the one I know. We don't really have the final say on, but I think the access to McMillan Road -- I like it staying. I mean I think -- as long as ACHD has recommended it's safe and they are doing the turn lanes, I think the more we can alleviate some of that stacking and driving through the other subdivisions and I think -- that's great and I think -- I agree that changing the wording on making it mandatory, that she make that happen with the micro path. I think if they are open to it, great. If not, I don't think we can hold her -- or that developer accountable what another subdivision may or may not say. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree. I -- I'm very happy to see an R-4 development come in and I am also in agreement with the access from McMillan. I think it's -- it's -- you know, when you have the R-8 subs they are just dense enough that you tend to have a lot of cars parked on the street itself and, then, that creates an additional -- additional, you know, issues with safety. If you have a car parked on each side of the street and, then, you have, you know, 120 cars from 128 homes filtering through all those, I just -- I think the McMillan access is necessary. And I -- I really like this -- this large park area. That size I think is fantastic. It's -- It's nice to see something that substantial. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. Instead of a bunch of little ones. Perreault: Right. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I tend to agree I think with both of your comments and I -- I can see where staff concern would be having several access points off of McMillan, but I would agree, I think it makes more sense to keep it there, to keep traffic moving throughout those neighborhoods safely. I also appreciate that they have done what was requested in putting some -- some stop measures on one of those corners and -- and making it a little bit safer for some of the pedestrians walking out of the parks. But I think it's a very well thought out project and it's nice to see some R-4 density. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 33 of 48 Yearsley: Madam Chair, I agree. And I do -- I think the access is acceptable. I understand what staff is looking for, but given that McMillan is going to be three lanes, I don't think it's bad and they have got enough room on both sides to have that access. I also agree that on the pathway that having her, you know, shall do that, you know, I think she should make every effort to try to make that connection, but have the -- if the adjoining property doesn't want it, have them submit a letter to her that we don't want that pathway as a proof that she did every effort type situation. I think as we talked, the -- the approval of landscaping from the irrigation and power company at the final plat I think is acceptable and everything. The one lady that had talked about the schools, you know, that -- that's always a tough one, because, you know, schools are overcrowded. However, if you talk to the school district they don't actually build a new school until they have enough students to fill a school, so you have a little bit of over -- you have overcrowding until you have enough to fill another school and, then, they work to build another school. So, you kind of have the cart before the horse or horse before the cart situation and so -- and at what point do we as a city draw the line and say no more, you know. Was it this application? The next one. Or the previous one that we should have? You know, that's always a hard decision to make and -- and so I think it's -- I think it's a good in-fill project. I agree that the R-4 is exciting, that we actually see some bigger lots again. So, I -- I'm in favor of this application. McCarvel: I agree on the schools and that's why I was curious, the school is scheduled for 2021 and this is not even scheduled to be built out until approximately then. So, I think it should -- I don't think this is the one that tips the bucket. So, I would be in favor of it with the modifications that we discussed. Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? They are all staring at you, Commissioner Yearsley. Perreault: Bill, can you potentially pull that staff report up for 1.1.1A? It might help. Yearsley: So, I guess the question I have with the maintain access, that's not under our purview, that's a City Council purview, but we can make a recommendation; correct? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Yes. That is correct. You can -- you can recommend striking that condition. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: And I have -- I have the list of Becky's revisions to the condition, so I'm happy to go over that if you would like. Yearsley: Actually, that would be great. Because I think I might be missing one. Parsons: Yeah. We got it -- we have -- it's in your packet, but it's just easier for me to kind of jot down what I heard and let you know how I think we could change it if you -- if you want me to go over them real quickly. So, item 1.1.1A, bullet one, is the micro path connection to the west. So, if you want some flexibility in there you can say with -- if -- I think from what I have heard from the discussion tonight it's your desire if they can't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 34 of 48 obtain the subdivision's approval, then, you don't want the pathway at all. It's not even required, because it's going nowhere. Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: I think that's your desire in your motion that provided -- do you want that -- her to work with the HOA prior to City Council hearing and get that answer, so that Council can take the appropriate actions or do you want to give them the latitude -- because that's their phase three, if I remember correctly, and so do you want to give them that latitude all the way to phase three, five years to figure it out. It -- it's up to your purview tonight. But I think I'm on board with where the Commission's going I believe is if you can't get their approval, then, not even get it -- don't even have a pathway to nowhere, because, I'm telling you, Isola Creek is burned in my memory for a long time and that's not the intent. The intent is to have this pathway connect and that's why we wrote the condition so strongly is because we see the value as -- as planners we see value -- all of us see value in connecting open space with other subdivisions. Yearsley: Right. Parsons: And whether or not we can make that all come together is -- is the challenge for us. McCarvel: I would say let's get it done sooner than later, so -- I mean you're going to have a fence there and construction can be done and make the gate or open the fence at the time where you're doing construction and that right up to the -- Parsons: I think -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think if the -- if Becky could reach out -- she has a month before you get to -- to City Council. At least get something in writing from the HOA that says, yeah, we are -- we will entertain it or we are supportive of it. At least Council knows that there is a possibility it could happen and make that happen and give at least the applicant assurances that they have some assurety -- some surety that this is going to happen -- some certainty I guess. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: That makes a lot of sense in my mind. The other bullet point was 1.1.1A, bullet two. You want to strike that, because you want the access road to stay as shown by the applicant. 1.1.3A talks about the grass and gravel. I think we have that worked out. I think we should just strike that provision, as the applicant has suggested, just leave the note provide the class one trees and strike out the provision for grass or gravel on the north side of the Lemp Canal, because I don't think there is going to be any room for it by the time the irrigation gets in there and it doesn't make a lot of sense and code allows -- and they are still going to have the 25 foot buffer on the opposite side of the canal. So, we are -- we are in good shape there. Yearsley: So -- so that one was 1.1 -- 1.1 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 35 of 48 McCarvel: Three. Yearsley: Yeah. 3A. Parsons: And D is almost the same situation. Just gives them -- I would just strike D. 1.1.3D. F is the requirement that they obtain approval. We are just modifying that one to say with the final plat or prior to signature on the final plat they have those approvals secured. Yearsley: Right. Parsons: And, then, I -- as I look through her response and looked at the staff report before the meeting, I did note that there was an error with condition 1.2.1. Staff inadvertently left an R-8 -- comply with the R-8 dimensional standards and as you know this is an R-4, so we -- we want to get that cleaned up as well for the applicant. And that's all that I captured for you as far as modifications. Yearsley: Okay. I think I -- I think I can do that one. All right. Thank you, Bill. Parsons: You're welcome. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0074 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 16, 2018, with the following modifications: That Section 1.1.1A, bullet point one, be modified to have that the applicant -- how do I want to word that? The applicant needs to work with the -- or to work with the HOA to -- or at least to have discussions with the HOA to see if they are amenable to having a connection -- a pathway connection prior to City Council I think is what we talked. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: Okay. Item 1.1.1A, bullet point two, be removed. Item 1.1.3A and B removed. And 1.1.1 -- or 1.13 -- McCarvel: F. Yearsley: -- F be modified that the -- that she shall receive approval from the irrigation district and Idaho Power at -- at final plat. And, then, I think it was 1.1 -- 1. 2.1 to have it be changed from an R-8 to an R-4 designation. Holland: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 36 of 48 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2018-0074 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Parsons: I have a couple items for you. McCarvel: Mr. Parsons. B. Public Hearing for Verasso Village North (H-2018-0071) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3471, 3513, 3543 and 3561 E. Tecate Ln. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 68 residential units on 1.698 acres of land in the C-G zoning district Parsons: A couple things for you to take under consideration before we leave this evening. So, the first is the applicant is here in the audience. He was here for -- he showed up for his Verasso number -- Verasso -- we called it number four, but Verraso Village No. 4. I know you guys have continued that to September 6th. I didn't see where anyone was signed up and wishing to testify on the item this evening, so if it's your desire to reopen that up this evening to answer your questions -- ask questions of the applicant and you feel comfortable with doing that and taking action on that application tonight, we can certainly do that. If not we can stay with the original motion and, then, have him come back on the 6th and you can ask your questions then. McCarvel: I guess my question would be -- Sonya has left and it's her -- she's the one that's been working on this application. Would it be -- do you feel comfortable in all the details of this application or doing -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the report was fairly clean. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval. I'm not sure if you had any desires -- I'm not sure what your questions are, but I'm certainly comfortable if you are to assist in getting this closure. I know Sonya and I talked about it before she left and she wanted to get it wrapped up tonight. The way we can do that -- certainly happy to oblige her. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 37 of 48 Yearsley: And, Madam Chair, my guess would be kind of leaning on Legal. This could open a potential for a challenge, is that not correct? Pogue: That -- my main concern is that someone may have been here, may not have signed up, but left once we -- you continued it and that could open -- McCarvel: I know there was people coming and going and I wasn't paying attention to who -- if somebody did get up and leave right at that moment, so -- Yearsley: So, just for legal purposes, we could go through this process, it goes through City Council, get approved and be challenged and have to go through the entire process again my understanding. Pogue: Correct. On a technicality. Yearsley: And my guess is -- is -- is the applicant wishing to take that chance. I guess if -- if we want to bring him up to talk to them. I -- because, ultimately, I'm okay to move forward with it, but it -- it's his liability if someone does challenge in my opinion. So, I will leave that to the chair to decide how she would like to proceed. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- would the applicant, please, come forward. Have you been listening to our discussion there? Are you willing to take that risk? Olsen: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Oh, sorry. State your name and address for the record. Olsen: Chad Olsen. 12790 West Telemark Street, Boise, Idaho. 83713. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Olsen: It was my understanding that the Commission was the final say tonight, because this does not go to Council and I don't know if that would affect your decision. In all the meetings we have had for the Verasso project I think the very first one we had two people come to our neighborhood meeting. On two none came. On three none came. And on four none came. So, it's been a pretty good project and I'm willing to take the risk. I think there would be an appeal period no matter what we do at the end of the ten -- you know, at the end of ten days. So, I'm willing to take the chance. McCarvel: Okay. I would say if the applicant is willing to take the chance I think our next meeting is looking fairly full already anyway by this draft. It already has I believe five items on it. I -- I would be amenable to moving forward -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: -- because he's -- he's willing to take that risk. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 38 of 48 McCarvel: Yeah. The risk is up to you and, then, we will -- yeah. I was just thinking there would be another shot at City Council, but, you're right -- this is it. It's a CUP. Yeah. I think with hearing what the neighborhood response has been, let's go ahead and move forward. Yearsley: So, at that point we need to make a motion to reopen -- McCarvel: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Madam Chair, I move that we -- McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: -- reopen file number H-2018-0071 to the hearing date of August 16th and allow the -- the applicant to present his case. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to reopen H-2018-0071. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: We were at the point where we were asking the applicant to give his presentation. Olsen: Chad Olsen. 12790 West Telemark Street, Boise, Idaho. 83713. Sorry for being late. For some reason I get mixed up on the Commission times versus the Council times. But, anyway, so the -- this is the fourth project -- fourth phase of the Verasso project, located on Records and just down from The Village there and it's been a very successful project for us. This is a component of two bedroom units and some one bedroom units. We currently have three bedroom units out there and they are built in a configuration of townhomes and what we are finding is on this last piece that the demand has been to incorporate some smaller units in our development, so that we have a nice mixture of all kinds of units, meaning three bedrooms, two bedrooms and one bedroom. So, this is an attempt to basically fulfill what market is asking us to do. We have -- it's a little bit smaller of a site, so we have struggled a teeny bit trying to get something that really looked like our current project and -- and fit in on a -- on a harmonious fluid type look and so what you see before you on this picture with the cars parked underneath was our attempt to do that and keep that architecture and kind of a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 39 of 48 contemporary fashion. We get a lot of compliments on our project, about how it looks, and we have really strived to maintain a very good look out there in that -- that area of the development of the city. We have -- are asking for 64 units. The application I noticed said 68 and we were struggling with some open common space area considerations and so we ended up sizing it down to 64 units so that we could maintain the open space. We have a couple of ideas on even how to create even more open space and so what you see before you is an application for 64 units with a mixture of two bedroom and one bedroom, most of them being two bedroom, and I stand ready to answer any questions you might have. McCarvel: I have got a question. You said you wanted -- was this -- you said you wanted flexibility to be three or four stories? Olsen: Yes. That is correct. McCarvel: Okay. And what height would you be at at four stories then? Olsen: At four stories we would be about 50 and that zone allows for 65. McCarvel: Okay. And what does that get you? You're still wanting to stay at the 64, just more open space with inside the atrium area? Olsen: Yeah. Inside the atrium area or we had even thought about breaking that -- that huge building up into two buildings and having more common space in between, creating a courtyard like we have on our other projects. That seems to have been a really -- you know, when we first did that there wasn't anything like that we had ever seen here in this valley period, not Meridian but anywhere, and that has really been just a -- kind of a unique marker to our development where people just really -- I mean they really spend a lot of time in that open space and so one of the ideas was instead of having such a large building is to possibly have two and, then, by doing two we might have to go to that -- that next story up, kind of like the Regency did, and, then, that would provide us more open space. It's a -- it's a big consideration for us and what we are noticing is in the marketplace that a lot of -- of the people that reside -- our residents use that open space quite a bit. McCarvel: Yeah. I would imagine it's an interesting space just kind of private and cut off, so -- Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair. So, then, along those lines what -- well, what -- is there -- are there any buildings in that vicinity that are at that height or is this going to be the tallest? Olsen: I would say the buildings that are closest in that height are the Regency. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: And that's split by our own -- our other projects, Verasso one, two and three. I know that on the other side of Verasso, phase one, there is an open field and that open Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 40 of 48 field was approved for apartments as well and I know they are tall. So, I don't feel like it will be, you know, out of place. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: You also have a shopping mall, which is -- which is the former Rosauers and that's pretty tall, too. I don't think it will look out of place. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If you -- if you go four stories are your -- are you planning on keeping the -- the unit count the same? Olsen: Yes, I am. Cassinelli: Okay. So, you're -- okay. Olsen: Yeah. We are not going to change the density. One of the things that I haven't brought up yet is the parking and, you know, we -- we are not actually just the builders. We build it and we own it and parking is a big consideration and in this particular diagram that you see before you we have 30 extra car spaces and there just can never be enough parking. It just seems there can never be enough. And so we just constantly -- we deal with the problems that we create. So, if we create solutions up front, then, what happens is we get to deal with it down the end -- down the road and it's much easier for us as we manage these units. Verasso one, two, and three have four spaces per unit. They have two in the garage and, then, two outside and so we just don't have -- we just don't have the problems. So, we really were cognizant of trying to put a little extra parking in, so that the people could -- so, by nature of that, going up in units would, then, decrease that extra parking space. So, we would not be going up in units. The density would be at 64. McCarvel: And those extra units -- that includes your compact spaces -- you have plenty of regular size -- Olsen: We do. We do. That configuration you see as a one way and that's an 18 foot lane, but that's a one way and you can really get by on like 15. McCarvel: Yeah. Olsen: So, technically, none of them needed to be compact. That was just the -- the surveyor thought that the minute that we went under 20 that the spaces needed to be compact. So, we actually went back through and relabeled that and changed that lane Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 41 of 48 to 17 and, then, none of them became compact anymore. There is a couple, but not a lot. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, if you were to consider doing the two buildings and going four stories, is that going to change the number of parking spaces? Olsen: It might increase it -- Perreault: Okay. Olsen: -- what we are thinking and so when you are covering so much building -- so much land with that much building it just doesn't provide for, you know, the nice little courtyards and it doesn't allow us to use the space as efficiently. So, I think that -- I think either the one building configuration or the two building configuration, we will be able to keep the extra parking that we have now and either make the decision to create more open space or more parking, but probably more open space. I feel like we have enough parking. Thirty extra spots is quite enough. But, again, we don't want to burden our neighbors. We don't want them to park at Culver's and, then, have them call us and get upset with us or something or -- or Les Schwab or something and so, you know, we feel like we want to create the solution up front for our own problems and -- and make it appropriate. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One follow up question. If you were to do the two buildings would that reduce the number of covered parking spaces? Olsen: Yeah. That would. That would. Because it would, then, be back to trying to put both buildings under -- but maybe not. Maybe we could just do two. It just would depend on the configuration of the 32, but -- but either way we would have some covered, because that's -- that's the ordinance and people would want them covered. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Currently you're at -- at the three story configuration what is your height? Olsen: Currently at the three story configuration we are at 40 feet. Cassinelli: Forty feet? Olsen: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 42 of 48 Cassinelli: Okay. You're saying you would be at 50 feet at four stories? Olsen: Yeah. That's correct. Currently right now that very top floor is a vaulted ceiling, so it's really tall. We just wouldn't have as much vault on the very top. If you go back to -- can I do that from here? Parsons: Sure. Olsen: You can see on the very top of those roofs that that's kind of a flared roof and so that was a lot more vaulted up there. That just wouldn't be as vaulted that way. It would be down a little bit. Also the parking garage itself was a little bit taller underneath. If the parking went outside it could get -- it could be made smaller as well. Shorter in that distance. But, again, that zone allows for 65 feet and -- but I don't think we would even be close to that. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You don't have a rendering of what that four story would look like? Olsen: I don't have the rendering with me, but it would look very similar to the one rendering that you see there. It just would be a little more flatter on the top of the roof. But, you know, in consideration of the design of the Verasso project we have really tried to maintain that to look really good. There -- there would be no way at this point that we would do something to jeopardize what we have already built out there. That's number one. Number two, there is the certificate of zoning compliance that -- that I feel is kind of rigorous and I'm kind of glad for that, because it really pushed us at the very beginning of the project and we are kind of glad for it now. Yearsley: Okay. As a follow up -- and I will just state it out right now, I actually have been intrigued with the four story idea. However, without actually seeing a concept I'm not comfortable recommending approval of a concept and so allowing him to talk -- I would be willing to continue it to have him come back with a four story if he would be interested. But I guess for me personally -- and I will let others weigh in as well, but I'm not comfortable, especially given the semi-residential to the -- to the east a little bit of going that high without at least some purview by myself. So -- so just so you -- McCarvel: Yeah. I would tend to agree. That's why I started with that question in the beginning is I'm trying to get my mind wrapped around what that would look like and, unfortunately, I'm one of those people that's got to see it and especially since this is the CUP and this is the only shot we have at it. Yearsley: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 43 of 48 McCarvel: If you are considering -- I mean I would be willing to approve the rendering you're showing us, but if you're considering four story or two buildings or something, I think we would like to see that. Olsen: Yeah. McCarvel: So, I guess that's -- that's your choice at this point. Do we approve what's in front of us and, then, you're strapped to building -- I mean what's your timeline on this? Olsen: Oh, you know, in the next few months. We are fine. McCarvel: Okay. Olsen: If it meant coming back and taking a little bit more time that's -- that's totally fine with us. We are not in a rush to -- to go to market quickly. We have our hands full. We are building quite briskly now and should be done in the next, you know, six to seven weeks, so -- McCarvel: And just so you know, I mean I think this is beautiful and I think that's a very interesting concept and I think that courtyard especially in such a busy area like that, having an enclosed private space, instead of open private space to all the noise and the traffic and everything, I think that's a really unique -- really great idea. So, yeah, I'm happy with this and I would be excited -- if you are thinking about changing it, I think we would like to see it, so it's -- Olsen: Yeah. McCarvel: -- your choice at this point. Olsen: We will accept that. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, if you were to -- I'm not a fan of -- of the length. I'm not a fan of the long building. Olsen: Yeah. Perreault: I really like the idea of the two buildings, but also taking into consideration the four stories, what that brings along with it, but -- so, then, if that's the case would the open space or the courtyard, then, be open to the street or is it still going to be private and enclosed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 44 of 48 Olsen: It would be -- a lot of times on a project like this -- we call this a podium deck. One side is left open and that's for sun, actually. That way you can grow things. Not that you can't grow things in a completely enclosed courtyard, but in this particular case we would arrange the buildings so that they were in a courtyard like fashion, keeping with the same kind of spirit that we have already created and so it would be open, but as far as sound goes that's a consideration, because I built phase one when Records didn't go through and now it goes through and it's a lot more noisy and so -- so that being said, I think we could create a courtyard with two buildings and I think we could create a sound barrier with landscaping and so I think we can get the best of both worlds with the -- with the two buildings and get a little more open space. It's also harder to create a courtyard on top of a parking garage and so we would have a little bit more flexibility in working with the ground, as opposed to working on top of a cement slab. Not that we couldn't do it, but it's just that -- I think would be easier. So, I have no issue going back and maybe generating a site plan that shows both. We were a little taken off guard, because the city code for building next to the property line -- or five feet away is -- is fine. We actually came to this -- this Commission and got an approval for that. But the building code changes that. That was kind of like last minute. And so, then, we were kind of stressing out and, then, going quite quickly to try to figure this out and keep the open space requirement. But we have settled on 64 and we can either look at that as doing one single building or two and I am more than happy to bring it back before the Commission, so that you guys can see it and -- because we want a great project. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is it -- I'm just throwing this out there. Is it possible to do -- if you do split it up and do two buildings, I'm assuming it's running lengthwise from Records from east to west is the length of that building; correct? So, it's running -- you're getting -- it's -- it's going -- if you're standing at Records it's going back towards the co-op -- or I mean towards -- McCarvel: Eagle. Cassinelli: -- former Rosauers there. Olsen: Yeah. That's a long tangent. Cassinelli: If you split it up into two buildings, is it possible to do one building three stories closer to Records, the second building at four stories -- is that a possibility to still get the unit count and do some of the things you want to do? Olsen: We could have two unique buildings by doing that, but each building would create its own set of circumstances with architects. It would be easier to do two -- two of the same type of buildings and almost make them like towers, so that each one looked the same. But back to your question about the long running tangent, we would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 45 of 48 have the ability to split it up and actually use the building to block a little bit of the sound if we put it -- if we put the courtyard -- I'm just trying to think what's the best way to put this -- parallel -- if we put the buildings parallel to the Rosauers building so that each building was parallel with some open spaces for parking and, then, we, basically, block that sound and created the courtyard with the two buildings, just kind of like we have done everywhere else. And so without a site plan it's probably difficult to -- to see that. I have looked at it a couple times, so it's easier for me, but -- but, yeah, two different buildings might be a little more difficult. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I guess my question is do you have these renderings available? Is this a short turnaround? Do you want -- Olsen: Sure. McCarvel: -- to come back -- Olsen: We could come back on -- I think September 6th. If that seems full and you wanted to bump us, we could bump to the next meeting. We are fine. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- McCarvel: Yes, Bill. Parsons: -- the first hearing in September -- it has five projects on it. I wouldn't say it's full, but one -- one application could take a while and the other ones filled up as well. So, both of those are filled. I would almost -- Olsen: October? Parsons: -- go on the 6th or the -- the next one in October, but I will leave it up to you. If it's just to look at elevations I don't think it -- and we don't really have anyone here to testify and I don't think we are going to take a lot of deliberation on looking -- McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: -- at some new renderings, so I think we could probably get through it fairly quick on the 6th would be my opinion, if that gives the applicant enough time to pull his information together, because typically we like to have something ten days prior to the public hearing, so that we can get -- you want staff's take on the elevation changes, too. So, maybe the -- the 20th or maybe the first hearing in October may be the best option. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Either way I don't -- McCarvel: You're saying the 20th is pretty full -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 46 of 48 Parsons: Maybe they want to go to the 20th, so we can get Sonya those revised plans, so she can at least let you know how that impacts the open space if there is two structures -- McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: -- and the parking and all of those things. We don't want to -- McCarvel: Well, I guess I'm asking are you more comfortable with moving it to the October date? October 4th? Parsons: I think we are going to be filling up this winter, so I -- McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Things are coming in and we are pushing things to the 4th already, so I can tell you it's -- it's stacking up and so no time is a good time, but to me I don't want to leave the applicant hanging out there too long, but at the same time I want staff to have enough time to review it and get our take on -- on their changes, so that you can make the right decision. Olsen: I would be okay with October. That gives us a little more time to look at everything and just make sure everything is perfect. McCarvel: Okay. October 4th then. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I move to continue file number H-2018-0071 to the hearing date of October 4th for the purpose of reviewing some additional renderings. Yearsley: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0071 to October 4. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Anything -- any -- wait a minute. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 47 of 48 Parsons: Everyone is getting antsy up there. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I did have one last item. As I mentioned to you, I had a couple things to share with you this evening and so thank you, Chad, appreciate you working with us and sticking around. So, just -- just more -- some -- some information for you. So, over the last couple months staff has been working on a revised staff report template and what we have -- we have gone through the directors, we have gone to City Council, we are fine tuning that document as -- as we sit here as the days move along, but at some point, either the next hearing or the following hearing, I want to prepare a memo for you and share that document with you and try to get your take on it and your review of it as well. But it will be a drastic change from what you see now and read now. There will be a community matrix section of it. There will be a project summary table at the beginning of the report that gives you the high level items of what the request is, how many lots, the density, level of service for the roads. You will have all of that in a table format. Did ACHD provide comments? Yes or no. Are they going into planning -- are they going to their commission, because the applicant can reach an agreement with ACHD. And, then, there will be a community matrix section that will say how does this comply with the city's master plan for water and sewer. Are schools overcrowded? Yes or no. Are there pathways. Yes or no. I mean there is going to be a lot more information in there to help you make a better informed decision on applications and we will get that to you earlier in the report than later in the report. So, again, I'm excited about what's kind of transpiring, but I just wanted to put that on your radar to keep your eyes open for that. It is going to be something new and approved. And, again, we have coordinated with Fire, Police, school district -- we have reached out a wide net to get the right comments I think for you -- you guys and the Council as you deliberate on these land use applications. We are trying to get you the right information and make sure we are -- we are capturing everything. And as you know, we are having more and more residents coming to these hearings and complaining about schools, the roads, density, so having that at your fingertips readily available I think is going to be a great tool and resource for you all. On that note I will go to the next item that I wanted to share with you and as part of your service to the City of Meridian the city -- the planning division actually pays for your membership to the American Planning Association. As part of that membership you have access to their website and this is their web -- and I pulled it up here just in case many -- many of you may not know or maybe you do or you don't, but at least I wanted to provide this as a resource to you as you get up there and deliberate on land use application. A particular site has a lot of things on policies, on training, on best practices for -- for our planning profession. It's certainly -- I'm -- I'm a certified planner, so I spent quite a bit of time looking at this site and trying to find ideas and continue my education and learning latest trends on planning. So, I didn't know if some of you were aware that you were members of this or not, but I guess my question for you tonight is if you -- I wanted to share this with you and if you see this being a value, the city will continue to provide for that annual membership. If it's something that you guys don't think you would use and you haven't taken advantage of this resource yet, then, I would just ask that at least give me some feedback as to whether or not you want us to continue paying for that, that you see value in it and that way I can at least pass it along to Caleb and our director to see where they want to go moving forward. But, again, I just wanted to let you know there is a resource here. We pay for the membership. I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 48 of 48 just asking you to follow up with me as to whether or not you see value in it or if you -- if you have been using this or if you even knew about it. And so I will close with that remark and stand for any questions you may have, at least regarding this website or maybe if you want to let me know if any of you have looked at this site or were even aware of it and so I can kind of gauge that as part of my conversation with Caleb sometime next week. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: What is our -- how do we log on? Username and password. What is the actual website? Is it -- Parsons: American Planning Association is how I get to it. I get a log on from the city and so I don't -- I'm not sure how all that works and that's why I said I would have to do more research on that. Again, Caleb had mentioned to me that -- to bring it up and see if you guys knew about it and we are taking advantage of this. So, I don't know if you guys have your own membership numbers or how all that works, but I can certainly follow up with him and get more information for you. McCarvel: I know I have not been given one. I don't know if -- no. Okay. So, we have, obviously, not been using it. Parsons: Do you get magazines in your mail -- mailbox from the city? McCarvel: Sometimes they bring them by here. Some -- I mean I think it's a couple times a year they bring one by, but it's not been consistent. Parsons: Typically on that -- I wish I had one here, but I thought they put your member number right on your mailing label on it, so if you haven't noticed it you might want to look. McCarvel: And I say it hasn't been consistent, but I don't know how often they come, so maybe it is consistent. Parsons: On a regular basis you should be getting -- I don't know if it's -- McCarvel: Is it monthly or quarterly or -- Parsons: It seems like it's monthly. I have a whole bunch of magazines in my -- McCarvel: I would say, obviously, at this point we didn't realize we had this available to us at the website level. Is this something that's coming up for renewal next week or at the end of the year? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 16, 2018 Page 49 of 48 Parsons: Well, it's something that we budget every year. So, I just -- I would imagine it's part of our budget cycle already and certainly if you want to get back to me -- if you find a magazine and see if there is a login number and I can try to get some more information from Caleb and maybe next meeting we can discuss it and you guys can let me know what you think and I will share that with Caleb. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: That works. Parsons: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Perreault, real quick. Perreault: Oh. I make a motion to close the public hearing for August 16th, 2018. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for August 16. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Before Bill as another -- MEETING ADJPVRNED A 04 P. M. APPRIOVED ORECqR l IN 5 FIL EOCEEDINGS.) 09 06 F(#i0c RVEL - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ��' ''l /1 p;� AlMYV-AKelV.Aff3r3'N DATE APPROVED AUS , ST I. city. of r �E IDIAN IDAHO `sem SEAL A)