2019-01-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 17, 2019.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 17, 2019, was
called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault.
Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Lisa
Holland.
Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Stephanie Leonard and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__ X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley
______ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald
__ X__ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli
___X___ Jessica Perreault - Chairman
Perreault: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for the delay. At this time I
would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission on January 17th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
Perreault: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We
will be continuing a couple of items this evening and that is public hearing for Pine Four-
Plex, H-2018-0135, and the public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129. So,
if anyone is here for those applications, we won't be taking testimony on those this
evening. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Holland: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All of those in favor
say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 4 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 2 of 49
Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item]
A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2019 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport CUP ( H-
2018-0121) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located on the SW
corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd.
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pleasant View
Elementary (H-2018-0103) by West Ada School District, Located
on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd.
Perreault: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have three items
on the Consent Agenda, approval of minutes for January 3rd, 2019, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting; Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport CUP, H-2018-
0121, and Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Pleasant View Elementary School,
H-2018-0103. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Holland: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Perreault: Now I will explain the public hearing process. 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 the approval of their application and
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their
presentation. After they have finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-
up sheet in the back as you entered -- actually, I think there is an iPad back there now. If
you wish to testify, please, put your name on that list. Any person testifying will come
forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, which it
doesn't look like we have this evening, there is -- and there is a show of hands to represent
the group, they will be given ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant
will be given another ten minutes to have an 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, we will be able to make a recommendation to City
Council.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 5 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 3 of 49
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Pine Four-Plex (H-2018-0135) by Amanda
Blackwell, neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located 645 W. Pine
A v e .
1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family family
development consisting of 4 units on 0.29 of an acre of land
in the R-15 zoning district
Perreault: So, we will go ahead and open the meetings that are going to be continued for
the purpose of continuing them and setting a date. So, at this time I would like to open
the public hearing for Pine Four-Plex, H-2018-0135. The applicant is requesting a
continuance to February 7th, 2019. Could I get a motion to continue?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move we continue public hearing H-2018-0135 to the date
February 7th, 2019.
Holland: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the hearing to February 7th,
2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Stapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) by
Stapleton, LLC, Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd./SH
69 and W. Harris St.
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 38.15 acres of land with
an R15 zoning district; and
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 223 building lots and
27 common lots on 35.67 acres of land in the R-15 zoning
district
Perreault: We will just go ahead and open Item D on the agenda to continue as well.
Public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129. Can I get a motion to continue?
They haven't -- the applicant has not requested a future hearing date. Is there anyone
present here for that application?
Johnson: Madam Chair, when I spoke with Sonya -- and perhaps planning staff can
correct me, but they had asked for February 7th, but she was recommending a date
beyond that. Bill or Stephanie have an update on that?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 6 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 4 of 49
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's my impression, too. We, I
think -- or February 7 is what I have heard, so --
Perreault: Can I get a motion to continue?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I'm just looking at the draft for the agenda for the 7th and we just already
placed another one on there that's like -- that will be five.
Parsons: Madam Chair.
McCarvel: And if staff is wanting a later one --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't have an exact date for you.
I can let you know with that particular subdivision we are working out some issues with
the developer and some of the things that we would like to be changed and, again, we
have a meeting with them tomorrow, but I don't think we can get those changes within the
necessary time frame to keep that -- update the staff report and get that information to
you before February 7th. That's why staff had -- had pushed out. So, I think for all those
involved I think that second hearing in February would probably suit us best, which I think
is the 21st or -- yeah. If I'm not mistaken. So, I would -- I think staff's position is push it
out at least to that hearing date, if Commission is amenable to that.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move that we continue Item H-2013-0129, Stapleton Subdivision, to February
21st.
Holland: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0129 to February 21st.
All those in favor? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Oakmore Subdivision ( H-2018-0118) by Toll
ID ILLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N.
Black Cat Rd.
1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning
district to the R-4 zoning district; and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 7 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 5 of 49
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family
residential lots and six common lots on approximately 7.29
acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district
Perreault: Now we will open the public hearing for Oakmore Subdivision, 2018-0118, and
begin with the staff report.
Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first project
before you -- actually, both projects before you tonight are kind of related. They are both
in the Oakmore Subdivision. So, some of the analysis and some of the stuff we will be
talking about is probably going to make sense for both subdivisions. Oakmore is this
application for a rezone and a preliminary plat. The site is located near the intersection
of West Gondola Drive and North Black Cat Road. It's approximately seven acres and
it's zoned R-4. To the north is future single family residential subdivision, which is West
Bridge, zoned R-4. To the south is a single family residential subdivision, zoned R-8. To
the east -- to the east is North Black Cat Road and single family subdivisions, zoned R-
8. And to the west is future phases of the -- of the Oaks, zoned R-4. In 2008 the property
was annexed and zoned as part of the Oak Creek Subdivision, which is subject to the
Oak Creek DA. In 2013 it was rezone to R-15 and platted as part of the Oaks North when
the property was expanded and split into the Oaks North and South, which was
associated with the new DA. The current DA includes a concept plan with multi-family
depicted on the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan shows multi-family -- or, I'm
sorry, medium density residential. The applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R-
4 and a preliminary plat consisting of 18 -- let me back up really quick. So, this is actually
the concept plan for the whole Oaks North Subdivision, which shows Oakmore up here
to the northeast. So, the applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R-4. A preliminary
plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and six common lots. The lots range in
size from approximately 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet, for an average lot size
of 11,495. The proposed density is 2.44 units per acre. The proposed density is below
the desired density for medium density residential, but we feel that it's consistent when
included with the entire Oaks development. The applicant has submitted a separate
modification to the development agreement to be consistent with the proposed
development for 18 single family residences on the property. The DA modification will be
heard before City Council on February 19th. Approval of this project is contingent on that
approval and depicts multi-family, rather than the single family residences that are being
proposed. A stub street is proposed to the north into the proposed Westbridge
Subdivision, into the south to Jump Creek. Internal access will be through future phases
of Oaks. No direct access is proposed to North Black Cat Road. One common driveway
is proposed to provide access to two lots at the northwest part of the property. That
access does exceed the UDC maximum length of 150, but the applicant is working with
staff on that and we will get it redesigned prior to the Council hearing. Five foot detached
sidewalks are proposed throughout the development. Staff is recommending that the
applicant add a macro path to the southwest part of the site. Right about here. Which
has been noted. To provide pedestrian access to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the
south. Staff is also recommending that the city's ten foot multi-use pathway be continued
along North Black Cat Road. The West Cap sub lateral crosses Lots 2 and 3, Block 1,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 8 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 6 of 49
and Lot 1, Block 3, in the proposed plat. The applicant shall relocate that lateral or tile it.
The applicant needs to specify how wide the easement will be on those buildable lots. If
the easement is greater than ten feet it needs to have a 20 foot common lot, unless it's
waived by Council. Renderings of a variety of the single family residences have been
submitted. They will be pretty consistent with what's in the area. Staff is concerned that
the number of amenities provided with the overall development for this subdivision and
Oakwind, which will be heard next, may not be adequate, since the conceptually approved
multi-family would have required more open space and amenities. This parcel was
originally proposed to develop with 60 multi-family units, which would have been required
to provide at least ten percent open space and at least three qualified site amenities. With
the addition of the two projects currently proposed, Oakmore and Oakwind, were -- they
will be adding, if approved, one hundred additional single family residential homes, which
means roughly 750 single family homes will be using the same group of amenities
originally approved. Staff feels that the recommended micro path and continuation of the
ten foot multi-use pathway would provide usable open space for residents. There has
been no written testimony on this project and with that staff recommends approval with
the conditions that were contained in the staff report and asks that Commission determine
whether the number of amenities provided with this development and -- are adequate for
the subdivision. With that staff will stand for any questions.
Perreault: Any questions for staff? No. Okay. Would the applicant, please, come
forward.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business
address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing Toll Brothers on this particular
application. Could you put up the Oakmore -- oh. Yeah. This is Oakwind. Sorry. You're
Oakmore. That's okay. Sorry. Whatever you had. Just your -- the colored site plan that
you had in your PowerPoint. Sorry. Yeah. That's good. Right there. That's good. When
I originally designed the project for Oaks North and brought it through for entitlements,
my client Coleman Homes at the time acquired this L-shaped parcel that you see that's
before you as Oakmore Subdivision. The reason that they acquired it, even though it was
kind of an unusual shape, was that we would, therefore, have secondary access out to
Black Cat, which was necessary to meet the fire department requirements. Since -- since,
then, the Jump Creek Subdivision has been approved -- the Westbridge Subdivision has
been approved and so my clients kind of took a look at this and decided -- we initially
showed no design for any multi-family, we just said 60 multi-family dwellings on R-15.
So, what's before you this evening is -- we are asking to down zone it from R-15 to R-4
and from the 60 multi-family units to 18. And so what -- what we did is we have opportunity
now to connect to Westbridge Subdivision to the north, which has been approved and,
then, to the south is Jump Creek and they -- it's my understanding that they are
constructing their collector roadway. The staff has asked us to include a micro path here
and we already showed a micro path coming to the west -- or east. I'm sorry. Out to
Black Cat Road and, then, staff has asked us, based on the park's pathway plan, to install
a ten foot multi-use pathway along our Black Cat frontage, which we are in agreement
with both of those issues. I did have a conversation with the fire department. They
indicated this common driveway here is 187 feet long and the maximum allowable length
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 9 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 7 of 49
is 150. So, I will need to reconfigure these two lots to bring this into compliance with the
150 or either just consolidate the -- the four lots and make it three lots. So, we will go
ahead and do that prior to going to the City Council. So, really, what you're -- what's
before you is a reduction of 42 dwelling units. This will be part of the 250 some acres of
Oaks North. In that project we had -- I sent staff an extensive list of our open space. We
had 27 acres of open space, which we have increased that open space as we were
designing phase one, two and three at this time. We have 5.71 acres central amenity, so
we are building with the first phase this 5.71 acre central amenity. There will be pool
facility, tot lot, benches, picnic areas, pathways. There is going to be a pathway that runs
along here. We are piping the Creason Lateral. There will be a ten foot multi-use pathway
that goes all along the collector roadway and up this collector and, then, links to Jump
Creek. So, what's before you as Oakmore is just this little L-shaped parcel here. So, it
will be part of this larger development that you see here. We reviewed staff's conditions.
We are in full agreement. Do you have any questions?
Perreault: Becky, can you -- so, access to the property will come through Oaks North,
so I'm assuming it will not be built until the roads are -- I don't know what -- I don't have a
phasing plan in front of me for Oaks North.
McKay: Madam Chair, you're correct.
Perreault: Okay.
McKay: This will be one of our latter phases. So, phase -- phase one is right here with
the amenity. Phase two, phase three is I think right here. So, it would be in our latter
phases and we are not taking any direct access to Black Cat.
Perreault: Okay.
McKay: It will all be internal and, then, we will link Westbridge and, then, into Jump Creek,
because this collector goes on out to Black Cat and aligns with Bridgetower West or
Volterra that I designed east of us.
Perreault: Okay. Can you show us on here what the pedestrian access would be from
this property over to the closest open space or common area in Oaks North?
McKay: Yeah. So -- so, we will have a pedestrian pathway located here that will allow
people to come in and drop into the Jump Creek project. There is a proposed elementary
school that will be up in the Bainbridge project. So, we put a micro path coming out here
to Black Cat and the multi-use pathway and, then, as far as dropping into our central open
space, they will come down and catch this multi-use pathway, it's a ten footer, it will run
all the way down and it's all detached to the central amenity here. We have another
amenity up here and, then, we created a pocket park here. There will be another amenity
here, here, here and here and, then, we have other amenities to the west. So, we were
required to have, basically, a pool facility, multiple play equipment or tot lots, our
integrated pathway system, our ten foot multi-use pathway. We have Bocce ball courts,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 10 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 8 of 49
covered picnic shelters, barbecue areas. We are doing a sport court. Benches. Sitting
areas. And, like I said, in those smaller pocket parks we are doing playground, tot lots.
So, there will be -- there will be activities throughout the whole project due to its size and
what I indicated to the staff, as we submit our first phase we will create a qualified open
space map with a list of amenities and we have done this with the staff on our larger
projects, so that we can track them phase by phase, making sure that as we progress
through that we are meeting our qualified open space that's delineated in our
development agreement and the number of amenities as approved initially by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Council.
Perreault: Any questions from the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Becky, are there -- there is just the one pool here. Are there other pools in
the adjacent subdivision?
McKay: In Oaks South we have another. So, there is Oaks North that you're looking at
here. South of McMillan is the Oaks South development. It has its own pool facility. This
is going to be one of their larger pool facilities due to the number of lots of in here.
Cassinelli: How large is that pool?
McKay: They are working on the design right now. I have not seen the finished product,
but it's going to be far larger than Oaks South.
Cassinelli: And parking at the pool --
McKay: Yes.
Cassinelli: -- how much parking is available at the pool?
McKay: The parking -- I think the parking we had -- it looks like probably about 20 spaces
in there by just eyeballing it, but that's one of the things that we have been working with
staff on is providing additional parking for these pool facilities, because people -- parents
like to drive their toddlers, handicapped children, elderly people like to drive over to the
facilities and so we do receive comments on projects -- none of them have been mine --
that the parking was inadequate where they have just say six or eight spaces. So, yes,
we are cognizant that that -- that has been an issue with other projects.
Cassinelli: And one final question. Is there -- is there a clubhouse there as part of the
pool?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 11 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 9 of 49
McKay: They are working -- their amenity designer for Toll Brothers is back east and they
are working on that design right now. The one on Oaks South, it is just changing rooms,
pool facility, picnic shelters, barbecue areas, playgrounds, walkways, benches. Since
this is a lot larger area they are going to boost that amenity package up. So, I'm -- I don't
know if they are going to do like a -- like a great room or gathering place. I can obviously
-- if that's one of the comments that the Commission has I can take that back to their
designer who, like I said, is working on that right as we speak.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Perreault: What would you say is the distance from Oakmore -- walking distance from
Oakmore to that central common area? A quarter mile? It's a pretty significant distance.
Wouldn't most -- wouldn't most folks be driving?
McKay: I would say that is probably a quarter mile. Yes.
Perreault: And there isn't -- other than taking the sidewalks, there is not a quicker way to
get to the other parks in that -- that northeast corner there?
McKay: Well, it -- I don't have the Jump Creek design in front of me. I don't know if the
staff has it. They are asking me to put a micro path right here linking to open space in
Jump Creek, so they may be able to drop down into Jump Creek and take a shortcut to
here versus having to go all the way around the horn here. They may be able to just
come down directly here. I don't -- I don't know if they will add that or not.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we just -- the city just approved
the final plat -- the third phase for Jump Creek. So, that's the purpose for the condition is
to tie into their micro path segment. It does dump into an on-street sidewalk and, then,
ties into the collector street. So, it's a -- it's a shorter jog to come through the micro path
and, then, get onto the multi-use pathway between both the subdivisions and get down
to that park. So, it -- yes, it's quite a bit of distance away, but there is a shorter -- shorter
route to get to it than what you see in the concept plan.
McKay: And, Madam Chair, the -- the lots in here are ranging from 9,000 to 15,000 square
feet. So, we -- we are only at 2.44 dwelling units per acre. So, it's really low low density
out there on that periphery.
Perreault: Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair. Sorry.
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: And this one might be more directed to staff. Do we have kind of -- you know,
it's kind of hard to get a picture of just this little piece. Do we have one that's kind of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 12 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 10 of 49
showing what's up north and what's being proposed down below kind of all together, so
we can maybe see in more of a better context?
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can't get our mapping program
to work at the moment, so I was going to try to show you the plans of parcels that we
have, but I can't get it to show up. So, this is our Google Image to be built. I don't know
if you remember where are all the connections are. Maybe you could --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Commission, are you wanting Jump Creek in relation or even
all of these subdivisions approved around? Do you want it for Oaks North and Oaks
South and see how those tie together or even how Jump Creek ties into this?
Yearsley: I was just thinking the north and south, just because, you know, it's -- it's a very
thin, long strip and it would kind of be nice to have a context of how these three fit together.
Parsons: We have that in the staff report and maybe Stephanie can pull that up and blow
up and, then, show you how all those -- all those subdivisions interconnect.
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think the best that we have got
right now is what's shown here in the planned development map and you can't really see
the connections all that well, but I will try to troubleshoot and see if I can get the -- the GIS
map to show up, if there is anything else that you want to discuss while I do that.
Perreault: Absolutely. Let's move forward and take public testimony. Is there anyone
signed up?
Johnson: Madam Chair, there was no one signed in.
Perreault: Is there anyone here who would like to testify on this application? Okay. Well,
then, that being said, are the Commissioners okay with reviewing these maps during our
deliberation or would you like to wait until we -- do we want to close the public hearing
and -- or do you want to wait?
Yearsley: You know, it's kind of a tough one for me, because, you know, anytime you're
going to R-15 to an R-4 -- I'm always in favor of that. So, my only concern I guess for me
is -- and maybe it's not that big of a deal, but it -- it just kind of -- you know, so -- you know,
it would just kind of be nice to have a -- just a feel of how it fits in with the rest of the
subdivisions. But, you know, if everyone would like to move forward I would be okay with
that.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 13 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 11 of 49
McCarvel: I'm looking on the map on the left and that's all R-4 to the north of it. Becky
-- okay. And, then, did I see on that other map there was a little tiny strip of R-15 left?
Has that been approved already?
Parsons: Yes. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that two acres of R-
15 was a four-plex conceptual plan that was approved with Jump Creek and they will
have to come back before this body with a CUP application in order for you to look at the
elevations and the site layout. So, it's conceptually entitled, but it hasn't been approved
for construction. They have just -- they have just subdivided it at this point.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Or at least in the process of subdividing it.
McCarvel: And, then, what was south of that little strip of R-15 that was left? Was that
R-4 or R-8 below that?
Parsons: Madam Chair, that is R-8.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: Madam Chair, one more --
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: -- one more question of clarification. Just to make sure -- the application is for
rezoning it from R-15 to R-4. There were a couple of notes in the staff report that
mentioned R-8. I think it might have just been a typo, but I just noticed that right below
the maps on here, so I just wanted to make sure I noted that for you.
Leonard: I will make sure to make that correction in the staff report.
Perreault: Does the applicant have anything else to share prior to closing? Okay. I will
take a motion to close the public hearing for item number H-2018-0118.
Holland: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Perreault: So, this is a unique situation in that there has already been a DA approved for
Oaks North and so different in a situation where if -- we are not looking at this isolated
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 14 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 12 of 49
piece of property and in our next hearing we will be taking into account a section on the
west side of the same property and so I think we want to review them as a whole and
consider them as a whole and so as far as reviewing open space, taking all of that into
account for 750 units is where some of the topic of our conversation should be.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think at this point for this little strip I would be in favor of the R-4 and letting
this one in without a whole lot of modification for the open space. I think it's definitely
going to come into play more on the next one and taking a harder look at that overall, but
I think with this little strip and not taking the access to Black Cat the way they had originally
envisioned, I think this individual project -- I would be in support of this one.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I tend to agree. I -- I don't mind the down change in density on this project. It's
kind of a strange shaped parcel to do much with and I think my only concern with it at this
point is the R-15 that would be south of it and how that's going to integrate in, because
that could be a challenge next to an R-4 for neighborhood. I would imagine that once
residents get established they might have some concerns with the multi-family building in
their backyard. So, I think that's my -- my only concern at this point. The only other note
I had was that the fire department said there were some challenges with that 150 feet
drive, but Becky addressed that in her report, so no concerns there.
Perreault: Bill, you said that Jump -- phase three of Jump Creek has been plotted and
are they going to be presenting that soon? Is there an anticipation that they might start
construction prior to this property, since this is such a later phase?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that project has
already been before City Council --
Perreault: Oh. Okay.
Parsons: -- and that final plat's been approved.
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: So, yes, they are getting their construction drawings reviewed and approved
now, so they can start in the spring. So, yes, it will be ahead of this phase for sure.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 15 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 13 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: So, it -- it should not come to anybody's surprise, then, when they go to build
those lots that --
Perreault: That was there.
McCarvel: Yeah. And it was --
Perreault: That was what I was getting at.
McCarvel: -- the four-plex kind of blends in better than, obviously, a big apartment
building. I think given the circumstances and being separate projects I -- I would be in
support of it.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Overall -- overall I'm typically almost always in favor of step down and it does
look like there is staff comments and discussing the amenities and whatnot in the next
project, so we will -- it looks like we will be talking about that. All in all I'm in favor -- in
favor of it, I just -- I think it's going to be funny with some four-plexes back there. It's a --
had this been R -- remained at R-8 it would have been -- I think that would have blended
a little bit better. So, it's going to be a strange blend, but the R-15, that's been approved
and it's hard to do a whole lot else with this -- with this strip than to do it the way it's done.
So, all in all I'm in favor.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, just taking on my experience that I have seen, I'm on the HOA of our current
subdivision and the last phase got the least amount of amenities and I will tell you I still
to this day will hear that they are feeling left out, because they didn't get the amenities
like everybody else did and so I pay some conscious -- you know, conscious effort to that
and I apologize for maybe not being up to speed on a lot of this, but, you know, it's a long
ways from this subdivision to where their amenities are and having -- and not knowing
what's being proposed north, because it sounds like that one's going to be part of all this
overall development, I'm -- I would be a little leery to -- I like it, I -- don't -- don't get me
wrong, but I would like to see a little bit more amenities out this way and -- and if they
have better amenities with the next phase up above it, you know, that would be beneficial,
but at this point, just based on this alone, I think we are a little short on amenities
personally.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 16 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 14 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I -- Commissioner Yearsley, I agree with you on that. The only thing I see
sometimes on the -- on R-4, the size of the lots, a lot of times residents will -- they have
got all their own amenities going on there. Sometimes they will -- I mean if they have got
room to put in a pool they can -- they will have extra large play structures and that sort of
thing. I think, you know, when you go through some of the -- some different subdivisions,
neighborhoods around that have -- that are R-4 and have almost acre size lots, they have
got -- you know, they have quite a bit. All in all I would agree with you, though.
Yearsley: Well, I understand where you're coming from and I -- I -- I appreciate your
comments.
Perreault: I would have liked to have seen -- if -- I agree that -- that -- I feel like there is
quite a distance to common areas and I would -- would have liked to have seen more
options for walking paths -- would be between some of the home sites to get to some of
those areas a little more quickly. Could you bring that full concept plan back up?
Commissioner Yearsley, just a question for you then. Would you in your thinking along
those lines, are you suggesting that maybe there is a smaller central area and they put
some larger common areas in different sections, since it's such a large development?
Yearsley: You know, I -- I think for the most part maybe adding a little bit more ground to
that little pocket park and making it a little bigger, maybe adding an amenity there, would
-- would be satisfying, you know, because it gives them something close by that they can
go to and congregate together as -- as kids want to go play instead of playing in the
backyard or something like that, is -- would be adequate.
Perreault: Yeah. Any other thoughts? Any motions to be made?
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Bill was able to locate a concept
plan that indicates the land below -- or to the south. So, he's putting it in the folder and I
can pull it up if you would like to take a look.
Perreault: We had a hearing for the property to the north not long ago and it's also this
sort of a strip piece and -- and if I remember correctly they were larger lots, Westminster
Subdivision, and it wasn't unlike how this is designed, but I would imagine the two are not
sharing any kind of, you know, open space, so --
Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so you can see the -- the
Oakmore Subdivision sandwiched in between, which is Westbridge to the north and, then,
phase three of Jump Creek is right along the south boundary and you see how the roads
connect into that development and, then, if you can -- if you can -- if -- you kind of show
where the two common lots are, Stephanie, there where the pathway connections would
come in between Lots 7 and 8 in the southwest corner -- I'm sorry. That's not this corner.
That's where that connection would come in. But that just shows you how this would
interact with the adjacent developments and, then, that R-15 piece that you brought up
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 17 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 15 of 49
earlier it shows in the corner of Jump Creek number three there is seven lots with four-
plex units there in the north. It's the northeast corner of Jump Creek. Yeah. Right there.
That's that remaining R-15 that was approved with that development. I didn't mean to
hijack your motion, but I thought you wanted to look at something and showing you
how --
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. So, we have got common lots all along the north side of that road, just
-- I mean open space. What was planned in there? Just open grass and landscape?
That entire open area and, then, the -- is there room for any sort of amenity in that space
up there?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, is that a question to staff or are
you guys just talking out loud? I can --
McCarvel: A little of both.
Parsons: I can see -- I can see things a couple different ways. So, I think we should
elaborate a little bit on the open space and amenities for you. So, just to kind of give you
a broader understanding, because I worked on this project in -- in 2013, so I'm very
familiar with it. It's a -- it's a large project. It's a huge community. We are talking almost
400 acres when this thing is built out and done. I think one of the aspects that the city
really liked at the time that it came through that it was a mixed use development. It had
multi-family, it had a mix of different residential types, it had office uses, it had a future
park and a lot of that has dissolved and that's why we need to go through that DA
modification, which I won't go into at this point. But now we are down to where we are
having a larger project and now we are starting to pick apart pieces of that larger project
and now we are trying to integrate that smaller portion into a larger portion that's already
been approved and so that's why we pose that question to you this evening, is because
with a standalone multi-family project you get your own open space. You don't want
amenities that go along with that project and that's driven by that density. In this particular
case these are larger lots and they are R-4, so that's a good thing. I think the Commission
agrees. You can have a bigger backyard, you're going to have more open space -- private
usable space for the homeowners. So, in the applicant's request for that DA modification
they are asking to modify the concept plan and change that from multi-family to -- we
have a history here with the city. I don't want you to think we have a precedent that when
there is common ownership for a development we do allow the developer to amend the
development agreement and roll in additional properties under that development
agreement to share open space and amenities with different phases or previous phases.
Not at issue with that, but I think the Commission's raising some concerns that we saw
when we analyzed the project is the fact that the multi-family project functions differently
than a single family project, just for the fact that you are going to get more open space
and more amenities with that. So, we don't want to lose the intent of the original plan, we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 18 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 16 of 49
want those amenities to happen -- in that open space to happen and we are talking 750
homes and going back to the Commission standpoint, when we look at a Tuscany, when
we look at a Paramount, we look at four pools, we look at a city park donated, we look at
a lot of things that come into play that aren't part of this particular project and they were
at one time. Again, I'm not trying to sway the Commission one way or the another, I'm
just laying out kind of traditionally what we have seen as development -- larger
developments like this come in. This plat, although they were not proposing ten percent
open space and they are asking to include it as part of the overall development, you have
-- the code allows you the ability to require ten percent of this plat -- standalone plat. It's
over five acres minimum. If you feel there should be an amenity and ten percent open
space with this plat, that's something within your purview. If it's something that you want
added as part of the DA that we can't get because code doesn't allow you, then, we would
ask that you provide a recommendation to us, so that we -- as we prepare the staff report
for the DA modification we can include that in our recommendation to City Council as they
act on the DA modification. So, that's something that you need to consider. If you want
this to be a straight R-4 development, still be part of the Oaks, but still have the ten percent
as required by code and the one amenity, that's within your purview to require. If you feel
like the applicant's made the justification that it could still function with the way it's
designed and still have adequate open space and amenities with the previous version of
the plan, that's within your purview and we will take that up with City Council as we move
forward with that DA modification. But if I'm looking at this -- and if you're struggling with
it -- or if you want to compromise, if you think they should do five percent, certainly, the
applicant has the ability -- to me if I'm looking at this trying to find logical open space --
and I'm going to sneak over to Stephanie's mic to kind of -- so I can show you what I think
would be the best place for the open space. Yeah. I would -- I would almost link it here
-- this other common lot, then, you can get another -- a pocket park or an amenity with
the adjacent subdivision and you kind of build that sense -- place of community and you're
not having to go a quarter mile or go through a bunch of different streets and tie in their
pocket parks that are -- are a thousand, 1,500 feet away. But that's just my -- my -- I at
least wanted to give you a context and that way we don't have to go and do all of that with
the next project either. Any questions on what I have provided to you?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: And I don't have the vision on this. I'm sure Becky might. But I mean they
are already having to reconfigure the land -- that little spot to the north of the road with
the common driveway and I know she mentioned possibly that that would be three lots
anyway. I don't know if there is more space to be had there to create an amenity there.
Yearsley: Madam Chair. And I -- I kind of wonder if it might be advised to maybe reopen
the public hearing to at least maybe ask Becky some of these questions on what she
would like to see or what -- what she would recommend or -- or what we can do to work
this out.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 19 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 17 of 49
Holland: Madam Chair?
Yearsley: At that point I would make a motion to open the public hearing.
McCarvel: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Oakmore
Subdivision, H-2018-0118, to pose additional questions for the applicant. Becky, would
you like to come forward.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Yeah.
Right now we are at -- as a standalone this is at 6.77 percent open space, because we
have detached sidewalks with eight foot landscape buffers. It was included that -- in the
entire project where we are required to have a minimum of ten percent, it was included in
that and when we have come in with replats of certain areas we have looked at them from
its entirety and -- and has never been asked to make it stand on its own. But I can
understand where the Commission's coming from and the question arose, you know, is
this area here large enough to have some type of amenity. No, it's more just a -- just a
road buffer, because we are single loading this street. We have this common area here.
We are going to have a pedestrian path that drops into Jump Creek here. We also have
a pocket park right here and so what -- we will have to have an amenity in this common
area. As far as storm drainage, we will be taking the storm drainage into this area here,
so this -- this common area could be enhanced and if we, you know, reorient this area,
then, even make that a little bit larger, but put an amenity right here, so they would have
an activity and I think -- I think that's -- that's doable and I think that that would kind of
solve the -- the concerns that the Commission has, the distance between this kind of
outlying parcel over by itself on Black Cat and the distance to the central amenity. So, I
guess that's -- that's what I would suggest is, you know, that there be an amenity here
and try to -- try to augment that when -- when I reconfigure this prior to going to the Council
and -- and get the client to indicate what type of amenity we can put in that space.
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky, before you go away could
we clarify what we are going to do with the West Tap Lateral? It looks like currently it was
untitled. I don't know if -- the plan has probably been grounded I would assume.
McKay: Yeah. It's -- it's going to have to be piped. We have been working with the
Creason Lateral Association and the downstream users on the ditches. So, we are trying
to get that kind of hammered out. It's still in flux at this time until we get the actual
association approval.
Leonard: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Yearsley: So, before you leave, I'm just trying to figure out how to formulate a motion with
this. So, you said you're at six point --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 20 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 18 of 49
McKay: Seven seven.
Yearsley: -- seven seven and I don't know what that is or what --
McKay: Half acre.
Yearsley: Okay. I'm trying to figure out -- I -- you know, I don't want to just say add more
open space, because that's pretty vague and I would like to be a little bit more -- I don't
know if you could actually get ten percent with adding that additional space there, but I
don't want to tie your hands to -- to lose an extra lot, because you're probably going to
lose a lot anywise. I don't want you to lose a second lot. You go to -- you know, it's kind
of hard for me to tell you -- you -- you probably have a better feel for what's -- what's there
and what we could potentially do. I'm trying to figure out how best to -- to phrase that to
give you some direction, but not tie your hands too close. Does that make sense?
McKay: Yes, sir. I guess to try to quantify it you mean?
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah.
McKay: Yeah.
McCarvel: Do you think you can get to the ten percent or nine, probably --
McKay: Ten -- ten I would probably have to lose -- if I'm at 6.77 and I'm a half acre, I
would have to -- I don't have my calculator on me.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Were you going to -- were you looking at giving up a lot in
those -- with that -- when you reconfigure that up top?
McKay: Well, in -- in trying to shorten this we have -- we are required to shorten this
shared drive, so in shortening that driveway I'm going to have to reconfigure these lots
and most likely have to probably go from four to three. So, in doing -- in doing that, in
reconfiguring that, then, that would allow me to augment the area that I already have here
and, then, I could identify what that amenity would be prior to going to the Council. So,
that I guess to try to specify it, the -- the Commission would add a -- a condition of approval
that some additional open space be added to the adjoining common area at the southwest
corner and an amenity identified for the benefit of these residents prior to the Council.
Bill, is that --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that's amenable to staff,
because they got -- this particular common lot is not part of the plat and it's outside of that
-- inside of that realm of that DA modification. I think that would be appropriate to give
staff that recommendation and we will carry that forward and make sure that that's
captured in the DA mod staff report that we present to City Council.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 21 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 19 of 49
Yearsley: Sorry, I -- and I missed -- I was -- I was -- you know, you were wanting to
calculate -- I calculated about 11,000 square feet, which is probably a little -- the extra
three percent and so what were you proposing? I missed that. I apologize.
McKay: Oh. I'm sorry. I guess in the motion that -- prior to Council review of the
preliminary plat we -- we have to reconfigure this area to bring it in compliance with the
fire department, which I anticipate this will have to go to probably three lots versus the
four. So, the motion would include a condition that prior to going onto the Council that we
augment the adjoining common area on the southwest corner and, then, identify an
amenity that would benefit these 18 lots right here.
Yearsley: Okay. I think that would be reasonable.
Perreault: And those lots are a quarter acre, but -- but one of them -- I'm guessing it's
probably about 9,000 square feet or so.
McKay: Yes.
Perreault: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Can I take us into the weeds for a second?
Perreault: I thought we had been there.
Cassinelli: Becky, was there a -- did you have a drawing on your presentation with that
-- with the road -- basically with it flipped with the road on the southern boundary?
McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, we -- we did try both -- we tried it both
ways.
Cassinelli: My -- my thought there -- not necessarily with the -- with all the common space
and whatnot, but the four-plexes down below, the -- the higher density down below getting
it -- instead of those homes backing up to that you got the road that would be abutting
that. Does that work?
McKay: We flipped it. It didn't work as well trying to interconnect with. At the time West
Bridge was going through the process, so this is a drawing that my team put together and
I sent it over to Bill, so that while your staff was reviewing West Bridge, because they
were being required, I believe, to have landscaping all along there -- Bill, was that -- no.
No. It was Jump Creek that had a landscape buffer all along their northern boundary,
because we had the street adjacent to them and so, then, when we flipped it, then, that
allowed them to get rid of that buffer and enhance their open space here or consolidate it
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 22 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 20 of 49
and this just seemed to work out better for all three properties. So, I did coordinate with
Dave Bailey, who is doing Jump Creek and West Bridge, and I did coordinate with the
staff while West Bridge was processing to make sure that we could get all these bits and
pieces to fit together. The sad part is that these were all done in the county with splits
and so here you had these -- these seven, eight acre parcels that had one single family
dwelling and they were all kind of odd ball shaped pieces and so we tried to make it so
that all these puzzle pieces would fit together. As far as compatibility, you know,
residential is compatible with residential. The fact that we do have Black Cat, which is a
major arterial, and the fact that these lots are a little bit larger, you know, there -- that's
going to be a trade off for them. I want a larger backyard, but I have a four-plex to the
south of me. This is going to be constructed well before us. This is going to be one of
our latter phases. So, as far as these future homeowners, they will know exactly what's
in the rear yard before they ever agreed to purchase or build a custom home on those
lots. This parcel just doesn't work out for R-15. It just didn't have enough depth to do
anything. We tried -- we tried four-plexes, we tried duplexes, we tried all different options
and it just really was not conducive. So, that's kind of why we had to sit back and go,
okay, what is really the highest and best use.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair? And I would imagine if you move the road to the -- to the south
you will lose even more lots in that little L piece, because of your 150 foot set -- you know,
requirement for them.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Yearsley: So, there is a couple of issues with that I see.
Perreault: Any other questions for the applicant? Can I get a motion to --
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Oh.
Holland: I move to close the public hearing.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Oakmore
Subdivision, H-2018-0118. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 23 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 21 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I'm happy.
Perreault: Good. I like that. You could also try to make a motion.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval of City Council -- to City Council of file number H-2018-
0118 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17th, 2019, with the
following modifications: That the driveway be reduced to meet fire code and that the
common lot on the southwest -- northwest corner of the adjacent property be expanded
into this subdivision to provide additional open space and another amenity to be brought
before City Council and discussed there.
Holland: Second.
Perreault: One quick question. Since it's already in the staff report that they need to
shorten that common drive, do we need to include that as -- do we need to make any
changes to that or is our motion --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm not sure on the exact condition,
but, basically, I think if you want to amend the motion just state that it needs to be
corrected prior to City Council to comply with city code with the fire staff conditions. And
I know -- I know Becky is working with the fire department and us on that and she
communicated that to us this afternoon. So, that's all we want to do is just want to make
sure that it's all corrected and the Commission -- or, excuse me, the Council takes action
on the correct plat that they are going to approve.
Perreault: Okay. In that case I think the motion was clear. Did we get a second?
Holland: Uh-huh.
Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve Oakmore Subdivision, H-
2018-0118, with conditions. All those in favor? None opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll
ID ILLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and W.
McMillan Rds
1. Request: Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R-
4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 24 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 22 of 49
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 82 single family
residential lots and 7 common lots on approximately 16.52
acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district
Perreault: All right. Next we will open the public hearing for Oakwind Subdivision,
H-2018-0119, and we will take a moment to hear the staff report.
Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The item before
you next is the Oakwind Subdivision. It's for a rezone and preliminary plat. The site
consists of about 16.5 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-15, with a little section of R-4
to the northeast. It's located near the intersection of North McDermott Road and West
McMillan Road. To the north are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-4, and,
then, undeveloped parcel, which is zoned RUT in the county. To the south future phases
of the Oaks zoned R-4 and to the east future phases of the Oaks zoned R-4. To the west
is North McDermott Road with undeveloped land and zoned RUT in the county. In 2008
the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oak Creek Subdivision, which is
subject to the DA. In 2013 it was rezoned R-15 and R-4 and platted as part of the Oaks
North where the property was split and put to the Oaks North and South, which had a
new DA associated. The current DA -- the current DA includes concept plans with multi-
family depicted on the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is medium density residential. The applicant is requesting rezone from R-4
and R-15 zones to R-8 and a preliminary plat consisting of 82 single family residential
lots, six common lots and one common driveway. Lots range in size from approximately
5,400 square feet to 8,600, for an average lot size of 5,843 square feet. Previously the
multi-family was proposed with this development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning.
The applicant now requests R-8 to make it consistent with the development that's
proposed now. The gross proposed density for this development is 4.96 acres per unit,
which is within the desired density for medium density residential. The applicant has
submitted a separate modification to the development agreement with -- to be consistent
with the proposed development of the one hundred single family residential homes. The
DA modification will be heard before the City Council on February 19th. Approval of this
project is contingent on approval for the modification to the DA. Two access points are
currently proposed via West Cherrybranch and West Vercelli Drive, both of which connect
to future proposed phases of the Oaks. With the current proposed plat the common
driveway depicted the CDC requirements. The fire department has requested an
additional access as these two proposed access points don't meet the minimum
requirements for emergency access. Staff recommends that the applicant add two
additional stub streets, one to the north in lieu of this common drive, and one to the south
to provide better connectivity. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the
development. Because of our concern with the open space and site amenities provided
with this project, staff is recommending the applicant add a micro path to connect the
southern portion of the subdivision through the future phases to the North -- Oaks North.
The addition of the micro path would provide usable open space and increase pedestrian
connectivity through the subdivision. Renderings of a variety of the single family
residential detached homes are submitted with this application that demonstrate what
feature homes would look like. They are pretty similar to what's proposed throughout the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 25 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 23 of 49
development. As mentioned earlier, staff is concerned that the number of amenities
provided with the overall development may not be adequate, since there was originally
supposed to be multi-family here and they are required to provide ten percent open space
and in this case there are 200 family multi-unit families -- excuse me -- 200 multi-family
units that were proposed, which would have been required to provide at least five
amenities. Staff feels that the recommended micro paths and continuation of the ten foot
multi-use pathway would provide usable open space for residents. There was no written
testimony on this project. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff
report and with that staff will stand for any questions.
Perreault: Any questions for staff?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just for clarification, so you are recommending in the staff report the additional
amenities or are you just concerned about the additional amenities?
Leonard: In the staff report we are recommending the micro path that extends from the
south to the north and I think I misspoke and said multi-use pathway. I did not mean a
ten foot multi-use pathway on this one, just a micro path that's supposed to go from -- I
think -- the concept plan here. Yeah. So, kind of generally like this to extend to the future
phase of the Oaks.
Yearsley: Well -- and near the end of -- you're talking about that -- this size of a property
you would have to have so many amenities and -- and that, but those aren't actually in
the staff report to provide them.
Leonard: No. No. Madam Chair, Members -- or Commission -- Commissioner Yearsley,
it was actually just mentioned to give you kind of context, because originally there was
supposed to be multi-family here and if there were to be 200 multi-family units they would
be required to give ten percent open space and the -- at least five amenities. So, just to
kind of, I guess, provide some idea of the amenities that might have been there --
Yearsley: Okay. That's what I -- I just -- just want to make sure I heard that correctly.
Perreault: Any additional questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward
again.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay.
Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here on the Oakwind
development representing Toll Brothers. When I did Oaks North, as Stephanie indicated,
that was five years ago. We had this property designated R-15 and, then, the property to
the south of it designated R-15. We didn't have any specific site plan for this area. We
just had a target density of proximity 208 multi-family dwellings on this area here and,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 26 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 24 of 49
then, what we showed on this R-15 area was possible neighborhood mini storage and the
reason that we -- we kind of designed it in this fashion is your -- there will be an overpass
that will start probably about in here and it will -- when Highway 16 comes through the
overpass for McMillan will have to go over Highway 16. McDermott Road will terminate
and we are building the bypass for McDermott, so it will bypass here and, then, it comes
and bypasses and comes in, gets back in alignment, and McDermott will be downgraded
from the current minor arterial that it is today to just a collector, because it will cul-de-sac
and have no interconnection to Chinden Boulevard when Highway 16 -- the second phase
of 16 goes in. So, when Coleman Homes sold to Toll Brothers they took a look at this
area, had me lay it out and said that it was their desire not to have multi-family here. We
are retaining this R-15 portion that's at this location, which I think is approximately 7.82
acres. It could be either multi-family or it could be neighborhood accessory mini storage
and, then, we re-layed out the 208 units here and we put in 82 single family dwellings.
So, right now this -- majority of this property is R-15. There is just a -- kind of a sliver of
R-4. We are asking for a down zone from the R-15 to the R-8 and, then, the little sliver
of R-4 would go up zone to R-8. As far as the lot sizes, they are between 5,600 and 8,600
square feet and our overall density in this particular section is 4.96 dwelling units per acre.
The qualified open space is 1.19 acres or 7.2 percent open space. We will have detached
sidewalks with an eight foot landscape buffer. I did review the staff report and I had
indicated to Stephanie that I disagreed on the additional stub streets. This is the Bentley
parcel here, which is not a part of the Oaks development. That portion of the Bentley
farm was retained by Mr. and Mrs. Bentley. We coordinated with them. We put a stub
street here to the north. We also put a stub street here on their eastern boundary that
would allow their property to -- it can sewer this way and, then, they will have a loop street
that would come through and I did do a layout on their property on how this property could
redevelop in the future. To put another stub street here on the southern boundary -- you
put too many stubs streets to a parcel, then, pretty soon you're eating it up with a lot of
street that's unnecessary that the public and Ada County Highway District has to maintain
in perpetuity. Each one of those stub streets costs a significant amount of money. For a
parcel this size it needs two points of ingress and egress, which it will have. It will also
have the collector McDermott on its western boundary, but if they so choose they could
take internal access through us with these two points of access. I did talk with the fire
department. We have two access points into our project, but they measure half the
diagonal distance under the International Fire Code and so Joe indicated he wanted not
a public street access, but a micro path or emergency vehicle access here. The reason
I don't want to put a particular access is because this is that McDermott collector bypass
that's going to come through. So, I'm trying to orient this internally into the Oaks project
and not put something on -- an approach on that bypass to further create any congestion,
because we will have accesses into this parcel from the Trident collector and, then, the
McDermott bypass collector. As far as the micro path, I did agree with Stephanie, a micro
path here makes sense between Lots 8 and 9, because we will be piping the Creason
Lateral and, then, we will have a 14 foot pathway that will go through the project linking
from east to west. So, that would be a good linkage right there at the end of that. I didn't
understand the need for a micro path here, because my block length, when I measure it
from here to here, is less than 750 feet and they were asking for a micro path at this block
and that's only 450 feet. So, it just -- it didn't make a lot of sense to me. As far as
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 27 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 25 of 49
amenities are concerned, I did -- this was a buildable lot right here. We have eliminated
that and made that into a common lot, so it will have an amenity and, then, I installed a
micro path here to link it to the rest of the project. So, as far as linkage they will go directly
-- so, they will come up through this micro path and, then, they will be able to go directly
down that 14 foot pathway right into the central amenity right here. This is the lot right
here that we eliminated and made a big -- a pocket park with a micro path here. So, these
residents can also come up this direction if they so choose and they will be able to
recreate here. What else was I going to tell you? So, really, what we have done is we
have reduced it by 126 units. Staff talks about -- well, with the multi-family there would
have been some additional amenities, but there would have been a considerable number
-- larger number of people and units. We have 82 in here, instead of 208. We think it's
just -- you know, from Tolls' perspective they -- they want to see the diversity in the lot
sizes and that's what we are giving them. We have our smaller lots along the McMillan
corridor, which is a minor material and, then, along the McDermott corridor with the
Highway 16 here and some smaller lots here and, then, as we go through the interior we
have our mid size lots and, then, our larger lots are all up in the northern and eastern
area. So, we are -- you know, it's not a single product type development. It meets their
targeting needs. We have pocket parks that are, you know, throughout this and linear
open space where we will have amenities. Can I answer any questions?
Perreault: Questions for the applicant?
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Becky, could you talk a little bit about the western boundaries that's going to be
backing up to McDermott and how much of a buffer there is really going to be between
the back of those residences and the future Highway 16?
McKay: Along here we have 35 feet. The -- there is 50 feet of existing right of way for
McDermott right now. When ITD comes in and purchases right of way they will purchase
300 feet beyond the 50 feet of existing right of way and, then, they will center their state
highway right in that 300 feet and I think they indicated to me it's a 78 foot street section
is what they built in phase one and so it will be off to the west. It will not be adjoining
McDermott.
Holland: One other follow-up question to that. Is there going to be any sort of berm that
kind of rises up above to shield those homes from the traffic that's going behind it?
McKay: Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, yes, there will be berming and fencing
along there.
Holland: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 28 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 26 of 49
Perreault: Can you bring up the entire concept plan? Do you -- Stephanie, can you -- is
there any possibility, Becky, of those -- those lots there on the south of McMillan are very
dense and it -- it seems like that area doesn't have as much common space in relationship
to the number of actual housing units as some of the other areas. Is there any way to --
I know you're going to put that one -- you're going to add that one lot in that you just
mentioned, but that's probably --
McKay: Right here?
Perreault: Yeah. Not even a fifth acre, I assume. Is there any way to get just a little more
common -- and those lot sizes are small enough that the backyards are going to be -- well
-- so, I'm wondering if there is a way to get -- to get some additional green space in that
southeast section.
McKay: Yeah. What we -- what we could do is -- you can see here is that lot was needed
here and, then, we have the micro path that links. So, what we could do is extend this
area, so that it's enlarged, adjust these lots and extend that area right there, so that it's
one continuous -- through the whole block. So, it would be more like -- kind of like this
open space here and here or it takes up the whole block. We have another open space
just like that.
Perreault: Okay.
McKay: But, yeah, we -- we just basically extend it through here.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, just looking at the 16.5 acre you're looking at just a minimum of ten percent,
1.65 acres of open space just for this piece. It feels to me like we are trying to add more
density here and require the open space to be built someplace else. As you can tell my
open space is kind of a top priority for me at this point. I like what you're doing -- what
you're proposing over here and I know you do have some open space already in here.
Would that get us pretty close if you added that additional to the ten percent? I'm not
quite sure what -- what other open space you have --
McKay: We are at 7.2 percent or 1.19 acres.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: And I think we have to have, what, 1.65 -- is that right? 1.65 acres.
Yearsley: Yeah. So, I think --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 29 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 27 of 49
McKay: Are you thinking the open space should be --
Yearsley: No. No. No. I -- I didn't know what you had open space here.
McKay: Okay.
Yearsley: And I -- I was just asking if you took out that lot and added a little bit wider if
that would actually be pretty close, but if you have already got the 1.9, taking out that lot
and adding a little bit more would probably be pretty close to that ten percent open space.
Perreault: Those lots are probably about -- I don't have the dimensions on there, but I'm
guessing they were probably .15 or so. There is two of them. Being a third.
McKay: Yeah. They are averaging --
Perreault: They are averaging about --
McKay: -- 5,843 square feet. So, they are -- they are smaller than the R-4 lots in the
Oakmore portion.
Perreault: That was referring to the lots you were talking about on the end --
McKay: Those larger lots --
Perreault: Right. And --
McKay: Yeah. Those --
Perreault: To the north where the --
McKay: These are --
Perreault: Yes.
McKay: -- bigger -- a lot bigger. You can see -- you can see just by the comparison, yes.
Perreault: Yeah.
McKay: These are running probably 11,000 -- ten to 11.
Perreault: So, are you suggesting taking out a second lot and, then, including the
pathway?
McKay: We could -- we could --
Perreault: Or just --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 30 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 28 of 49
McKay: We could eliminate, then, have this be the open central open space that would
serve this neighborhood and it would be located just basically across the street and, then,
they would have their linkage to the Creason Lateral pathway through the micro path.
Perreault: That required -- that would be a DA modification.
McKay: Would this require a DA --
Perreault: Yeah.
McKay: -- modification? No.
Perreault: No. Okay.
McKay: No. If we eliminate a buildable lot and add open space -- in fact, in phase one
right now we have added open space, just to kind of let you know, because I did send
Stephanie kind of a quick calculation. So, in our first phase we have 25.91 percent open
space.
Perreault: Okay.
McKay: So -- so, we -- we are very cognizant on making sure that we distribute that open
space evenly throughout the neighborhood and get those amenities and it's a priority to
Toll. They are -- they -- like I said, they have people back east that that's all they do is
design amenities and -- and I have seen some of their designs. I just received one for a
project in Eagle and it's like an 11,000 square foot community center with indoor pool and
all kinds of -- fitness room, great room and stuff. And so I'm definitely going to pass on
Commissioner Cassinelli's, you know, comment that with the size of -- the magnitude of
Oaks North that that central amenity needs to be -- it needs to shine and needs to be a
size that accommodates everyone, along with all the other pocket park amenities.
Perreault: Definitely work -- I mean this -- this is a mile long. This is not small. This is --
McKay: No.
Perreault: -- a very large development --
McKay: It is.
Perreault: -- and as Bill was mentioning, several of the other developments that are a
mile by a mile have, you know, four different sections with different pools or amenities,
larger parks, so --
McKay: Yes. Madam Chairman, I did Bridgetower and we had -- we had -- we had two
-- we had two community centers, two pools, multiple playgrounds, green space,
pathways.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 31 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 29 of 49
Perreault: Any additional questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Becky, did you look at going out to McDermott? Because you -- you have got
the two access points. That's not a collector where those two access points are --
McKay: No. This is not a collector roadway.
Cassinelli: Okay. So, you have got 80 something homes going -- going on -- right out to
that roadway. That's not a collector. McDermott -- I guess my thought is that if you were
to -- to go out to the west, McDermott is -- is going to be a pretty quiet road there, so it's
going to be a cul-de-sac up -- up to the north. There is not going to be a whole lot of
traffic on that. Taking an access out there, would that -- would that make the fire
department a little bit more amenable to what they need?
McKay: I did not -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I did not discuss taking an
access out to McDermott. Ada County Highway District policy requires that we take
access to the -- the lesser street network. So, since McDermott is still designated a minor
arterial on the master street map, I don't think ACHD would allow me to have an access
out to McDermott at this time. It has not been downgraded. And, then, we have the
McDermott bypass as a collector and, then, we have Trident as a collector. So, the less
intensive street network is this local street right here. As far as my number of trips per
day, I'm well within my threshold. As you can see we have pretty much an even
distribution of traffic. We feed all of our traffic out to our central collector. This collector
roadway will go on north and serve the interior, comes down. Right now Six Mile
Engineers is designing a roundabout and we are doing a design for widening and sidewalk
all along McMillan Road up to this McDermott bypass. So, I don't believe ACHD will allow
me to put an access at McDermott, because we -- we don't know what the timeline is for
Highway 16 second phase. So, like I said, it's a minor arterial. But I am not -- I am not
overloading my streets, because we just don't have that much volume on the street. I
have a short cul-de-sac here. Everything else is kind of feeding out.
Perreault: So, to be clear, you're proposing to meet the fire department's request to just
put in an emergency access on the south side with a pathway?
McKay: Yes. Yes. So, we put an emergency vehicle access right here, which it also
serves as a pedestrian access, and I put a pedestrian access located here. Then that
would meet the fire department requirements.
Perreault: And they would not -- they would not need to move the -- the distance between
the two exits, then; is that correct?
McKay: That is correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 32 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 30 of 49
Perreault: The two streets.
McKay: The two streets would remain the same. That would just give -- they would only
use this in the event that they needed a second way in and there was blockage on both
streets simultaneously.
Perreault: Correct. If you're exiting --
McKay: Which is highly unlikely when you have all the different interconnectivity within
the project.
Perreault: What will happen to the lots there they are showing on this section -- on the
east side if there is going to be -- okay. So, that's that section where you're going to put
the additional --
McKay: Those streets -- right. Those streets come in here.
Perreault: Come through those -- that will be --
McKay: All your -- what we changed is that street is single motive now and both those
approaches come in like this.
Perreault: Okay.
McKay: And I tried to get the landscape architect to update this plan to incorporate that
in and they were just slammed with some deadlines and couldn't get to it. So, I know --
I'm bouncing back and forth, which you're trying to -- having to try to envision, you know,
what that looks like.
Perreault: Okay. So, that we don't have to potentially reopen the public hearing, do we
have any additional questions for the applicant prior to closing -- or hearing public
testimony?
Yearsley: Madam Chair? So, I guess -- I'm just going to say this right now, because
Becky's here. I think for me what I'm looking at right now is -- I like your idea of having
the path to the north and the emergency access to the south. I think that's adequate.
However, I would like to see it pretty close to that 1.6 acres for open space. That's what
I'm looking at it is -- for me is the most important just given where we are at in that -- that
corner and that stuff and so is that acceptable to you I guess -- at least -- at least for my
side. You know, I don't know what the other Commissioners are -- but, you know --
because I was just looking at -- just ran some quick calcs, you know, if you're at 1.19, it's
11,000, gets you close, but it's still like another 9,000 short for the 1.16. So, we are
looking at needing another about 9,000 square feet of open space.
McKay: So, are you thinking consolidate these two lots into this open space here?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 33 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 31 of 49
Yearsley: I am not going to dictate how that is done.
McKay: Just -- just --
Yearsley: Just I would like to see --
McKay: Meet the ten percent.
Yearsley: Meet the ten percent.
Perreault: And to be clear, Commissioner Yearsley, you mean within this -- within this
property.
Yearsley: No. No. Not -- not within this. If you're going to take out a lot over here -- you
know, as close to it as possible provided --
McKay: Provide staff evidence --
Yearsley: Yes.
McKay: -- that -- that we are meaning what the open space requirement would be for this
property, either internally or on the lots across -- the open space across the street.
Yearsley: Yes.
Perreault: Thank you.
McKay: And, then, I guess I -- in -- in the conditions we are asking you to eliminate
Condition A, C, and, then, modify the -- A -- or A-2-C and modify A-2-D, so that we just
have the one micro path here, because the micro path here just don't really make any
sense and aren't required under the ordinance. And, then, we do the emergency vehicle
access, which will be a micro path also there and under 3-A it also talks about the
additional micro path. So, we would retain -- add micro path between Lot 9 and 8, Block
1. The rest would be eliminated and, then, provide emergency vehicle access to the
south, which will also doubles as a micro path. Thank you.
Perreault: Okay. At this time we would like to take public testimony. Is there anyone
signed up to testify?
Johnson: Madam Chair, nobody has signed in.
Perreault: Is there anyone present who would like to come forward and testify? Okay.
I'm assuming that we don't have anymore conversation to have with the applicant.
Holland: Madam Chair, I just have one. Madam Chair, I just have --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 34 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 32 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: -- one more -- one more thought. I know we -- we talked about eliminating some
of the staff recommendations of stub streets, but I wonder to Commissioner Cassinelli's
point, if maybe the south entrance, rather than just being a fire entrance only, still might
be something that we do a stub street. It may not make sense right now, but once
McDermott becomes that quiet street and Highway 16 comes through, I think it would be
appropriate to have another entrance there. Maybe not right now, but I don't know if there
is a way to condition it where it could be a fire entrance now, but be expanded to be an
access point later, if that's something possible.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't recommend that,
because that's come back and bit us and it never gets converted back to a public street.
So, it -- it does pose a challenge. Typically, we have seen it go the other way, created it
as a street and, then, reverted back to something else. Again, it's your purview. You
have the fire department's comments. My only recommendation -- and I would like to get
clarification from the applicant if -- if the Commission does choose -- decide with an
emergency access only along the south, whether you want to see a paved access or a
grasscrete or some kind of integrated pedestrian access, so it just doesn't look like 20
feet of asphalt with a gate across it. I think we want some kind of aesthetics to it and
some kind of look and I know in other subdivisions I have seen that where they have done
the grasscrete and add a five foot pathway still and it turned out fairly nice. So, it's
something maybe the applicant can expand on in the rebuttal.
Perreault: Bill, is it -- so that stub street would connect to a collector. Is there a difference
in -- in width or sidewalk requirements or anything like that because it's connecting to a
collector versus if it was not?
Parsons: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, it's -- just comply with
ACHD standards.
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: Now, I would mention to the Commission, our code tries to limit connections to
collectors and arterial roadways and -- but given the concerns from the fire department
that they need another secondary access, you know, we are -- we are amenable to it
being a public street and/or cross -- or the emergency access. We just want to support
our team members.
Perreault: Even though that is a collector, I -- you know, folks are just -- they are not
going to -- I don't -- they can't connect out to McDermott in a different area, because there
is no exit. So, they are not going to use that section of the subdivision to pass through I
can't imagine for any reason.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 35 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 33 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, having that being a public access that they can do a future street,
but have it landscaped as a grasscrete or emergency access at this time I think serves
that purpose that we are looking for, but it gives us the flexibility in the future if we ever
need it and I think that's a fair compromise in my opinion.
Perreault: So, the staff's concern on that primarily is coming from the fire department's
recommendations or was there anything else in addition to that?
Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we like -- we like
interconnectivity for sure and that's what we have always pushed for and that's -- when
we had our project review meetings those were some of the comments that we received
from our other partnering agencies, that they wanted to see additional stub streets and
so staff went ahead and recommended some of -- the addition of those stub streets.
Again, there is other agencies that come into play to that and the fire department has
communicated they will support staff either way, but a minimum per code is the
emergency access to that south boundary. But staff -- again, staff has recommended a
stub street along that south and north boundary.
Perreault: If I understood the applicant correctly, that area to the south -- there was
conversation about being a mini storage, but also potentially single family and in order for
those -- those owner -- or, you know, the residents there to access the common areas
for, we want to make sure they can do that and they might need to do that by vehicle and
not walking, although they can -- if they are exiting out over to the collector on the east
side, then, they could take that route to get into the -- the central common area, but I don't
know where that -- I mean I don't have -- I don't know where the exit would be out of that
-- that property, whether it would be to the north or to the east. But that somewhat
eliminates access to -- well, not really. If -- if -- whatever the use is for the property to the
south, if they don't exit to the east and they exit to the north, then, that's going to minimize
their ability to get into the common area. That's the point I'm making.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I don't know if we need the applicant's testimony on anything else, but if we don't
I would be happy to make a motion to close the public hearing, so we can continue
deliberation.
Cassinelli: We already closed the public hearing, didn't we?
Yearsley: No.
Perreault: No.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 36 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 34 of 49
Cassinelli: Sorry.
Perreault: Just want to make sure we are not having to have to reopen it.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it's fine to have -- I think it's fine to have this discussion while it's
still open and we can close it to make a motion --
Yearsley: Absolutely.
McCarvel: -- since there is the potential of having the applicant back up.
Perreault: Exactly.
Holland: So, then, Madam Chair, my --
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: My recommendation would be to -- I think the northern part I'm okay eliminating
the stub street on, but the south part I think it needs to at least have one more point of
connectivity into the neighborhood at some point -- some point and I think that to the south
makes most sense where there is going to be kind of bypass road coming through there
to give a little bit more accessibility. I also agree with Commissioner Yearsley that there
should be more open space and I feel comfortable with requiring the ten percent, that
they meet that. I would like to see a little bit more in this actual phase of green space,
because it's a pretty dense development of a lot of homes -- to have a little bit more if we
can, but I think requiring ten percent would be to feel more comfortable at least. My only
other concern, too, was what I mentioned, too, was just being backed up next to
McDermott and Highway 16. I know it's going to be tough for those neighbors when that
road comes through and it's a lot louder than they expected, so I don't know that we need
to condition it, because it sounds like they are planning to put a berm and a -- and a fence
on there, but just that that would help buffer sound as much as possible.
McCarvel: I thought -- Madam Chair, I thought that was in that -- in the staff report
requiring the berm.
Perreault: I think it's a 35 foot buffer with a recessed berm; is that right?
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, it's a three foot berm with the
condition that they put this six foot fence on top of the berm and, then, there is a 35 foot
landscape buffer and --
Perreault: Twenty-five?
Leonard: No. Thirty-five.
Perreault: Thirty-five.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 37 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 35 of 49
Leonard: Yeah.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- just some -- some more
history on this. When this project was redesigned and reapproved back in '13 there was
a condition in the DA that required the landowner to notify any future home -- homeowners
that there is a state highway coming through their backyard. Well, not necessarily their
backyard, but it will be several hundred feet away from the boundary of this particular plat.
So, I know I personally looked at the marketing materials that Coleman put out at the time
and they did add that information to inform their homeowners. So, I just wanted to let you
know that anyone buying there is going to -- should be made aware that -- if they read
should be made aware that there is actually a state highway that's going to parallel State
Highway 16 -- or, excuse me, McDermott Road.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, on the original development agreement was -- you had mentioned earlier
that there -- there was a call for at least some office. I mean it -- and also multi-family,
which really there isn't now at this point in here, but is there -- what would -- getting out
there, what kind of services are there going to be in terms of either office or -- or light
commercial?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's something that -- that
disappeared when the Oaks West came in. We actually had the applicant process a
comp plan amendment to get rid of -- kind of that commercial designation. At one point
there was office designated -- office designation at the mid mile and because we were
changing that portion of the site from office, future park, multi-family to single family, that
was -- that particular developer just took his piece of property, amended the DA and they
extracted his property and entered into a new DA. So, it's no longer under the Oaks
umbrella, so that's -- that's some of the cleanup that we need to do with the modification.
But as far as service in this immediate area, everything is funneling back to the Ten Mile-
McMillan intersections. That's where all the C-G -- where the Walmart is, all that
commercial was happening about a mile and a half, two miles to the east and there is
quite a bit of vacant commercial already in that area. So, that was some of the justification
of why we didn't feel office was necessary at the half mile there at McMillan and in
between McDermott and Black Cat.
Cassinelli: Is there no plan out in that area, even at Black Cat and McMillan, to have
anything out that way?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, nothing in that immediate vicinity.
Everything would be up along Chinden corridor at this point in time. But we are in the
middle of a Comprehensive Plan update and starting next month we will be reaching out
to property owners in this area and asking them to attend several neighbor -- night
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 38 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 36 of 49
meetings to discuss what they kind of envision in that area to see if there are any changes
desired from our citizens.
Perreault: Not too far from 16 and Chinden where they are going to bring in the new
development there with the hospital as well that's proposed, with some other services
there as well.
Cassinelli: It would be nice if with that large of a development if there was some -- you
know, if there was some walkable -- just a little -- you know, a little neighborhood center
that's -- that's walkable, that's bikeable.
Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I know right now the -- the comp plan
committee is looking at several focus areas for the future use map, too, and there has
been a lot of conversations in that committee about this area with how that highway is
going to intersect, so I know there is a lot of conversations still happening about -- thinking
about future commercial and nothing's been solidified by any means, but I know there is
conversations about future proposed commercial near that area, especially since there is
a high school that we have been hearing as well. So, I think there will be more
conversations about commercial in that area, especially with that highway coming
through.
Perreault: Because when McDermott gets downgraded to a collector then residential is
a little bit more reasonable I guess -- well, reasonable is not the right word -- to have
there. I mean it's -- it's -- if -- if that wasn't happening I would say I'm not as favor -- in
favor of having residential in that location, but --
Yearsley: Madam Chair. I was on the Commission when we -- this was -- was initially
heard and we talked and I remember that being the big discussion with McDermott being
just an overpass and not -- it's not going to be a destination where people are going to
want to go and so that's kind of why we felt that you will more likely have probably more
of a business center on Ten Mile and McDermott and probably to the north and the south
at the intersect -- at the interchanges and so we didn't feel that there was a commercial
piece that was really -- that would -- would be viable at this location was our biggest
concern.
Perreault: Commissioner Holland?
Holland: I'm good.
Perreault: Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I'm good as well, so --
Perreault: Great. Can we get a motion to close the public hearing then.
Holland: So moved.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 39 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 37 of 49
McCarvel: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Oakwind
Subdivision, H-2018-0119. All those in favor? None opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli:
Cassinelli: Another question for staff. How -- how do we go about dealing with the
requirements of -- of the amenities and whatnot in the entire -- because that was -- that's
-- you know, that's a comment in -- in this one and the previous one that we did. So, how
do we -- how do we address that? How do we --
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Can we just use the verbiage as stated by the applicant in her presentation?
Cassinelli: I don't mean just that open space across the -- you know, that -- that we are
going to tie into that, but --
Perreault: Are you asking if we need addition -- to --
Cassinelli: I'm talking about overall amenities throughout the entire development.
McCarvel: I don't think we can --
Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, Becky
has stated that she's actually going to be submitting a list of amenities and she's given
me an updated list from what they have now for phase one. And they are also I think
planning on giving us a concept plan of where those amenities would be located and
where the open space is. So, that's something that we can, you know, talk with them and
work with them on. I don't know what the availability or how quickly they will be able to
get to that to us, but we can work with them on that.
McCarvel: Or we -- just like we did just prior to Council that they have it.
Cassinelli: But we can't require -- I mean can we --
Perreault: We can ask them to have additional amenities within the -- the location of this.
Cassinelli: That we are working -- yeah. But not -- not the Oaks North.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 40 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 38 of 49
Perreault: No, I don't think so.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission as -- as we discussed at the
previous hearing -- the previous item, we talked about what you can do with this phase
and what you can do with the DA mod and what -- if you want more amenities with the
DA mod, then, you can forward that recommendation on to City Council with the plat and,
then, staff will analyze that and as we do with the staff report for the DA modification, we
can inform the Council that the Commission had a recommendation that more amenities
be provided within the development than just the code minimums.
Cassinelli: Okay. So --
Parsons: And I think you had a commitment from the applicant that they may be
entertaining a clubhouse for this particular development. I think something of this size
probably warrants that type of amenity. I really do. This -- this is a big, big development
out here. We are talking, again, almost 400 acres between the Oaks North and Oaks
South. So, I think a lot of the communities out there have that. They have pools. They
have open space. They have all those recreational amenities and I think this is one of
those that warrants a real hard look at it and that's why we bring it to your attention. So,
if that clubhouse is something that you're eager to get, we can certainly put that in our
staff report for the MDA and tell Council that during the Commission -- of the subdivision
that the Commission had recommended that Council incorporate a clubhouse as part of
this development as an amenity.
Cassinelli: So, tonight we can make the recommendations for the modification.
Parsons: Just have staff take that under advisement as we prepare that staff report and
we can forward that dialogue onto City Council in our staff report for you.
Perreault: Eighty-two homes is not small and I wouldn't mind requesting an amenity in
that park expansion they were going to do to -- to the east, because they there -- there
isn't -- I mean if -- if we are looking at this and as it's sitting completely entirely on its own,
not part of another development, 82 homes is not a small subdivision.
Yearsley: No.
Perreault: So, that is something we can --
Cassinelli: Can you pull up that -- the one that shows the entire Oaks North or --
Yearsley: I think Bill's got -- he hit it right on the nose, you know, we need to recommend
that the -- the staff -- the Council look at what's being provided, what's currently provided
or what's being added from when we initially looked at it and -- and make sure that there
is enough amenities sufficient with this size of development. I don't want to dictate that
they have to have a certain -- well, at least for me I don't want to dictate exactly, you know,
you have to have so many amenities, but, you know, let's make sure we are appropriate
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 41 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 39 of 49
to comparable size subdivisions to at least make sure we have a good subdivision,
especially one of this size.
McCarvel: Madam Chair? Yeah, I agree. I mean I'm -- and I'm thinking what might be
appropriate in that space with the smaller lots is something for small kids, because I'm
just envisioning -- that's kind of a curved, almost blind spottish little road going through
there and if the little kids want to run over to that green space I'd like to keep them on
their side of that road. Bigger kids can get across, but if we are going to add more green
space in that square --
Perreault: So, you're suggesting to -- to put something with -- within the open space that
exists on this?
McCarvel: Well, that -- I mean -- and I think it would be beneficial -- I mean because there
is not a lot to this whole south end and it's all pretty dense houses, but anyway.
Perreault: So, to be clear, are you saying that you would like it to exist within the open
space on this parcel or -- or in the section that we were discussing earlier.
McCarvel: I'm opening the discussion. And other thoughts.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, I -- I tend to agree. I think that's going to be a busy
road entering into this neighborhood and there is going to be a lot of cars screaming by
to get into their neighborhood and their subdivision and I would hate to hear of an accident
of a three year old getting run over somewhere trying to get to the park.
McCarvel: Yeah. It's a -- it's a rounded corner, which is going to invite a little bit of quicker
traffic and, then, you have got the exit out there to the -- to McMillan. It's going to be a
busy corner and I just don't know if that's the best place for kids running across.
Perreault: Question first. Can we make a recommendation on a specific amenity or just
that they have one within this application?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have multiple amenities
described in the code, so it can be a tot lot, sport court -- I mean that -- that goes to why
staff had recommended the micro path connection. It had nothing to do with the block
length, it had everything to do with -- I remember working on this project -- and Becky
does a great job and she had -- her subdivisions, even looking at her previous
subdivisions, have a lot of interconnectivity and a lot of pathways and that's the selling
point of this particular development, it's all of those interconnected pathways and
walkways that people can rec -- stay in the community and walk and have an exercise
loop throughout the community and we felt there should have been more open space with
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 42 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 40 of 49
this particular development and we thought, well, a 15 foot wide micro -- micro path
through the entire development gives you the more usable open space. You can count it
-- count it towards an amenity, therefore, satisfying our concern for additional open space
and the micro path and the walkways consistent with the overall development plan for this
development and that's why we went that route. We didn't want the applicant to lose lots.
That wasn't the goal of staff. We -- we realized there is a pretty -- that's a pretty nice
development out there. We are not knocking that one bit, but what we just feel like we
are -- it's changed so much from what it -- what it was to where it's going now and it's
changing into a suburban development, for lack of a better term. That's what it is. It's
just more of the same and just more R-8, R-4 lots and so it's -- and it's -- it's a large
development and so we want to make sure that whatever community goes out there and
whatever develops there has a proportionate share of open space and amenities. That's
the best way to look at it and I have been before this body numerous times talking about
looking at our open space standards, looking at our minimum -- our amenities. Are they
too low? Do they need to be changed? Do we need to change our minimums to ensure
that we get proportionate sized open space and amenities for subdivisions and Becky has
been actually a proponent of that, too. She's never wavered. She never balked about
having to do more open space and amenities. So, it's -- it's not a knock on her by any
means, but we just -- we want you to really think about this. We are opening up the
development agreement, we are changing this plan once -- one more time and it's just --
it's something that we want to bring to your attention that we feel it's important we have
to do it right and that's why we are highlighting it so much tonight and having you dive in
on it, because we just feel like there should be more open space and more amenities
because of it changing from that multi-family to that single family component. It's just a
different dynamic that you're putting out there that, yes, it may be -- one could argue it's
less traffic or more traffic, less dense or more dense, but the reality is these -- the people
that buy in here are expecting a certain amount of open space and amenities that they
will have to pay into and use. The multi-family development comes in, they have their
own open space and own amenities for that particular -- that's the difference here is they
have the right to share everything. Multi-family development would have been contained
and had to provide their own and that's why we have highlighted that for you.
Perreault: In addition to it being in currently a location where there aren't any city parks
existing -- and I don't know what the future plan is or will be for that. They are isolated in
that way.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think -- I believe the nearest --
well, there is Keith Bird Park on the other section to the east. So, there is a -- there is a
couple of -- and, then, Heroes Park, which is up at Ten Mile. But the next regional park,
I believe is south off of Ustick -- that's out there now -- McDermott-Ustick area, somewhere
in that area. And there will be schools in the area, too. There is a middle school that will
be north of this project and, then, we have the elementary school coming online, too, so
-- I mean there is a lot happening out there. We are growing and certainly, again, those
are things that we are just asking you to take under consideration tonight.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 43 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 41 of 49
Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I'm just curious. I do like the micro path on the north end of it. I just -- I would
agree that what Becky has done in previous stuff we have seen, they are very innovative
in their amenities and open to that, so I would hate to tie them to using that micro path as
an amenity if she's got something else in mind that could be pretty fabulous in that corner
somewhere. I just -- I think, really, I like the micro path up to that other path that leaves
the other conditions open that it reach the ten percent mark and --
Holland: Madam Chair. Commissioner McCarvel, are you specifying that the
Cherrybranch to the north and not the first one to the -- skipping between where it says
phase one and phase two and just doing that part on the top?
McCarvel: Yeah. Just north of the Cherrybranch -- Cherrybranch --
Holland: Yeah.
McCarvel: The way the applicant had discussed it. Yeah.
Perreault: Between Lots 8 and 9.
McCarvel: Yeah. That reaches this corner area and connects it with that path -- that
major pathway that's going up there.
Parsons: Sorry. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just -- I just had a
conversation with Becky. She's indicated to me that -- I don't have my mouse here. Let
me -- it's difficult to explain something from a computer you can't see. So, Becky's
explained to me that she's willing to blow out maybe two of these lots, like you saw on the
-- the overall area. Reduce some of this open space along the open street -- the local
street and, then, put that connection in there and have that additional amenity and here
is how you get it more internal to the development and so she wouldn't -- and so eliminate
the micro path through this block, just have that -- that wider usable open space here.
Keep the micro path lot here. Shrink this one and, then, still kind you get you closer to
that -- that ten percent for this particular development. So, I just wanted to share that with
you.
McCarvel: Now I'm happy.
Perreault: If you get a tot lot.
McCarvel: If Steve gets to be happy, I get to be happy.
Cassinelli: Getting to the ten percent in this -- internally in there, I -- Madam Chair?
Perreault: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 44 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 42 of 49
Cassinelli: Just a comment. I -- I don't know -- Bill, if you would pull up the -- the whole
master image again. There aren't -- there aren't necessarily micro paths throughout.
There is the pathway system along the roads and there is detach sidewalks, but there
aren't micro paths that I'm seeing anywhere else. So, I don't know that we really -- well,
we just -- what -- what Becky just decided on I think is -- I like. That works. Don't
necessarily -- I'm not -- and a micro path to the north to get out to the -- to that pathway
along the lateral would be -- if that could still be done I would -- I would like to see that.
Just -- that's my thought on the micro paths. But if we get that -- if we get that wider green
space through that one block that would -- I would be happy on that, too.
Perreault: And, Commissioner McCarvel, would you still like to see an amenity there for
smaller children? Is that --
McCarvel: I think they will design something pretty fabulous.
Cassinelli: So, are we requiring an amenity though?
Perreault: We are requiring --
McCarvel: I think you require an amenity. Yeah. But I think --
Cassinelli: I will make -- Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: If -- my recommendation on kind of moving sideways a little bit to the overall
development agreement would be to either look at a second pool in there or making sure
that that pool and the parking is large enough to accommodate the entire north side of
this, you know, something along the lines of Paramount's main pool and clubhouse or
some other ones that are out there, but I think it needs to definitely be looked at, because
I did -- the subdivision I live in the pool we have -- it's not that big. We are talking -- we
have get about 350 homes. It's -- it's not adequate and every -- you know, every summer
it's -- you go over there it's like -- forget it. I'm not going in here. And -- and people are
-- you know, everybody more than three blocks away they drive to the pool. It's -- it's the
reality. And so there is -- there is not enough parking and the pool is way too small and
it -- you know. So, half the subdivision is just like forget it.
Perreault: I'm in the exact -- exact same situation. Identical to that. Three hundred and
fifty homes, tiny pool, most people don't use it.
Cassinelli: Why bother. Yeah.
Perreault: Yeah. And, then, you get disgruntled homeowners that don't want to pay HOA
dues for a pool they don't use.
Cassinelli: Yep. Yep.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 45 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 43 of 49
Perreault: So --
Cassinelli: I think we can all echo that same story, so --
Yearsley: And I don't know who is going to make the motion, but at least I think we ought
to -- may recommend that staff look at the entire subdivision as a whole and -- and verify
that there is enough amenities and make sure that that gets updated in the DA agreement.
Perreault: So, to recap, we -- we want to discuss the stub street to the south or ask for
one or leave it with the applicant's request,. Whether we are going to request a micro
path all the way through or just from that central area to the north.
Yearsley: I think we are -- I think we are all in agreement the central to the north, you
know, connect the path and, then, have the access to the south be a street access, but
don't landscape to the emergency -- so, you know, that they can open it up in the future
if necessary. I believe that's kind of what we talked about if I remember right.
Holland: Madam Chair. Commissioner Yearsley, I think staff had recommended not to
do that, because it won't typically convert well in the future. So, they had asked us if we
were going to require future use of it being a stub street to -- no, unless I'm
misunderstanding.
Yearsley: I think it was -- we have it as a stub street, but landscape to an emergency
access.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no, we want one or the other.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: We either want a stub street or an emergency access, but we want it to be
integrated in part of the landscaping use. It is an emergency exit -- with bollards or a gate
or grasscrete or -- don't even gate it off, just make it look like landscape like they did in
Fall Creek Subdivision. They had the same situation out to Stoddard. It works well, looks
great.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Can't even tell it's there.
Perreault: This is the one item I'm -- I'm torn on, because I can -- I know this -- I assume
that the applicant is going to retain this piece of property and not sell it, but if -- if not, then,
in some ways it could potentially limit what goes there if there is not any access to that
section. So, that's my only hesitation with making it landscaped emergency access, but
I don't have an answer for it, but --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 46 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 44 of 49
Cassinelli: Would you prefer to see access to one of those two roads, access to the
south?
Perreault: One of the two roads?
Cassinelli: The two access points.
Perreault: Not necessarily.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Perreault: And I -- I'm not as -- I'm not concerned about it from a traffic standpoint per se,
because just shortly to the south you're going to hit the collector. Right there that's --
that's connecting to McMillan. I'm just talking about connectivity to the lot to the south.
That's -- that's my concern. If they -- if the lot to the south -- south is turned into multi-
family, which it very well could be, then, you're going to lose not only walking, but driving
access into the park that's in the middle of that. Then your -- as Commissioner McCarvel
mentioned, people are exiting out of that -- that lot to the south. To the east that's a
collector road there. It's going to be a lot of traffic coming in to get to any kind of green
space. If they are going to keep that as a -- as a mini storage, well, then, that's not as
much of a concern, but we don't know that at this time.
Holland: Madam Chair, my preference would still be to see it be stubbed street, so that
it would connect in with Daphne at some point in the future for fire and police safety and
circulation for future development.
Cassinelli: I think the one -- if that property to the south does go multi-family, it's going to
have its own internal green space and amenity. I don't think they have -- I don't think it
would --
Perreault: Likely, but -- but it's my understanding that the intention of this entire
community is that it's all shared, so I don't -- and I don't know.
Cassinelli: I think they would be going more towards the pool than -- than a little pocket
park to the north if they have their own amenities.
Perreault: They might, but if they -- if they are only -- if they are accessing onto Daphne,
which is a collector, they need a safe way to get to -- to get up to the pool and they would
have to access onto a collector, take another collector, and potentially go through another
-- there is just not -- there is not a pedestrian access is the point that I'm trying to make.
Cassinelli: Okay. There would be -- and I -- I'm not trying to argue, but --
Perreault: But there would be --
Cassinelli: There would be with that emergency.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 47 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 45 of 49
Perreault: Yes. But if -- because the pool is -- there is not a pedestrian access, but
because the pool is a significant distance as you mentioned that people drive. If -- I don't
know what the requirements are going to be on that piece, if they were going to be
permitted to access to the east, I don't know if they can or they can't, because that's going
to be being an entrance or a collector area. So, I don't know what -- if they are going
to put an exit on that lot out to the east side it's not as much of a concern, but I don't
know --
Cassinelli: There is an exit out to the north.
Perreault: To the north. Then --
Cassinelli: My preference overall would be to not have both entrances coming out onto
-- onto that one road. I would like to see -- I would -- I would prefer one out onto that --
well, I guess it's not a collector there. I would prefer to be --
Perreault: It will be.
Cassinelli: -- one of the east and one of the south. No, I'm --
Perreault: To the north?
Cassinelli: The -- right now there is two coming out to that -- to the one street and it's not
-- that's not a collector there.
Perreault: No.
Cassinelli: What my preference would be to see one access onto that road and one to
the south.
Perreault: I see. Okay.
Cassinelli: And, then, you -- and, then, that would have the south -- like -- like you're
talking.
Perreault: Not a stub street, it's an actual access that they put in. And what's the thinking
behind that?
Cassinelli: To spread some of that -- right now you have all 82 lots accessing off that --
off that one street. So, it would split that up a little bit.
Perreault: Okay. My guess is on both of the streets, however, that nearly everyone will
be making a right turn to get out and a left turn to come in. I don't know that we are going
to -- that they are going to be doing a lot of crisscrossing, because of -- they are most
likely going to be heading out to -- to --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 48 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 46 of 49
Cassinelli: They are not going to go out through the -- they are not going to snake their
way --
Perreault: To the north.
Cassinelli: Correct.
Perreault: Yeah. They are probably not going to be heading out to the north. Okay.
Cassinelli: Another thing is would take some of it off that street and more of it onto -- you
know, and spread it out. I understand the applicant's thoughts on not wanting to have the
access off of a collector road and, then, in addition to -- Bill mentioned that that -- the city
generally doesn't prefer it either.
Cassinelli: Off of McDermott.
Perreault: No. That's going to -- so, this is going to be the bypass.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Perreault: This is going to be a bypass so like that's going to be converted into a collector.
Cassinelli: When it becomes a collector.
Perreault: Yeah.
Cassinelli: So, that's just another access point on a collector, which --
Perreault: Yeah. And that's what the -- the city prefers to stay away from and the
applicant's preferring to stay away from it. I didn't hear a specific reason, but the
assumption would just be for traffic flow and safety.
Holland: Madam Chair. I still don't see -- if you -- if you had a self collector -- or road that
connected in with Daphne there, that future bypass loop, I still don't see that being the
major access into the neighborhood. I would see the existing road that comes north right
now from McMillan into the subdivision being the major road and this would just be an
additional access to make it a little less -- I think you would turn left there and, then, turn
left again immediately into a loop. That was my only reason for wanting to see the stub
street there. And I don't see a problem with having three entrances into it, because I don't
think that's going to be the section of the neighborhood that people are racing through.
Perreault: So, if it's a stub street, then, when does it open up to give access? When the
lots to the south develop? When Daphne goes through?
Holland: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 49 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 47 of 49
Perreault: I understand what you're saying.
Holland: This is a proposed road at this point. That -- that bypass road, the proposed
road. Daphne.
Perreault: Yes. Right. Well, I would assume a portion -- the southern portion of it will be
implemented with the phase -- with that phase.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I'm going to attempt to make a motion and see where it goes. After considering
all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of
file number H-2018-0119 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January
17th, 2019, with the following modification: That the applicant would not need to stub a
street to the north. We would eliminate that requirement. That the stub street to the south
would be required to connect into Daphne when that development comes in. That we
would require more open space up to a minimum of ten percent and that the applicant
would work to -- with the -- with planning staff and also have kind of a comprehensive
plan of all the amenities when it goes to City Council and that they would add an additional
amenity for the section. That we would eliminate the requirement -- requirement of a
micro path going all the way from the north through the south, but that it be a -- as the
applicant stated, they would enhance the middle of that development section to add a
pathway and expanded green space and adjust those lot sizes in the middle section.
Anything else I'm missing?
Cassinelli: Did you touch on the amenities in the modified DA?
Holland: I mentioned that the applicant would work to put together a comprehensive list
of all the amenities and that Council would review that to make sure we had appropriate
number of amenities and variety. Any other adjustments I need to make to that?
Cassinelli: I will second that.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to accept the application with stated
modifications for Oakwind Subdivision, H-2018-0119. All those in favor? None opposed.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, just so I have one last word on the record --
Perreault: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 50 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 48 of 49
Yearsley: In my nine years of stewardship I appreciate all the help and stuff that I have
learned. I hope I have been a good steward to turn that stewardship over to you guys
and the new commissioners. Don't screw it up.
Perreault: Well, we will significantly miss your knowledge, especially your engineering
background.
Cassinelli: Yes.
Perreault: I -- there has been many times I have come to the meeting and thought, well,
I may not totally get it, but Steve will. So, I will -- we will definitely miss having you here.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioners, before we adjourn I just wanted to extend the
offer -- any of you needing tickets for the State of the City address and, if so, if you
wouldn't mind just sending me an e-mail tomorrow, then, we will try to get you some
tickets.
Perreault: Say that again.
Parsons: State of the City address.
Perreault: Oh. Okay.
Parsons: For the Mayor's -- on February 6th. So, wanted to offer that -- extend that offer
to you and, then, we will do our best to get you some tickets, so that you can attend that
event. So, please, e-mail me and let me know what your desire is to attend that event.
Perreault: It's limited -- more limited seating this year, because of the change of location.
Parsons: That is correct. And tickets are going quickly.
Yearsley: Okay. Madam Chair?
Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Move we adjourn.
Holland: Second.
Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the public hearing of January
17th, 2019. All those in favor? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:22 P.M.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 51 of 145
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 17, 2019
Page 49 of 49
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
S ERREAULT - CHAIRMAN
ATTES .
C. JAY CO - CI CLERK
o,�LTa71 �
DATE APPROVED
o�Q�RATED gVCG
„r o
'0,4 "ff
0
z. SEAL /
TRE