Loading...
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