Loading...
2019-06-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 20, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 20, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland, and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Andrew Seal. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen ______ Andrew Seal _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Rhonda McCarvel _______ Bill Cassinelli ___X____ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Okay. Good evening, ladies and Gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 20th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Next was the adoption of the agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda for June 20th, 2019? McCarvel: So moved. Olsen: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3; Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 4 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 2 of 38 Perreault: Next on our agenda this evening is the Consent Agenda and we just have one item, the approval of minutes for the May 16th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with a 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 do so. After they have finished we will open for public testimony. There are iPads in the back if you would like to sign up to speak. Each person testifying will -- will come forward and be allowed three minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to respond if they desire. Then we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H- 2018-0126) by BVA Development, Located at 1020 S. Eagle Rd. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C -G zoning district Perreault: So, at this time we will open our active items this evening. We will start with the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. Let's begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 51.59 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at 1020 South Eagle Road. This property was annexed in 1995 and a development agreement was recently approved. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A preliminary plan is proposed, consisting of 20 building lots on 51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in at least three phases as shown on the phasing plan. Primary access exists to this site via South Silverstone Way, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 5 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 3 of 38 a collector street at the southern boundary of the site. And that is right here where you can see my pointer. And a secondary access is available via South Rackham Way, a local street, at the southwest corner of the site. And that is right here. All lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to the cross-access and parking easement. The Idaho Transportation Department submitted a letter to the city recommending the developer construct a second right turn lane at the eastbound off ramp prior to commencement of phase three or exceeding 668 p.m. peak hour trips as mitigation in lieu of mitigating for impacts to the northbound left turning movements at the westbound ramp and this is an off-site improvement and isn't required as part of this application. Staff is just merely telling you the input that ITD had on this application. So, although this mitigation would provide some relief to the overall operations of this interchange, which ITD feels is reasonable to offset the developer's impacts, because this is an off-site improvement staff does not recommend it's required with the plat. However, it may be considered with the upcoming development agreement modification that will soon be submitted for this project. A 55 -- excuse me -- 50 foot wide landscape street buffer containing a pathway is required along I-84 and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Silverstone Way a collector street. Rackham Way stubs to the site at the southwest corner as I mentioned and a shared cross-access driveway is proposed along and adjacent to the southern boundary between this property and the property to the south. There has been no written testimony received on this application and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do Commissioners have any questions for staff? Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East Front Street, Boise. Suite 200. I'm counsel for the applicant BVA, dba Eagle View, which is the owner of this property. Okay. We are in agreement with the staff report. I want to highlight and identify just a couple of issues that we -- that we want to go through and recognize that this application hasn't been before you, so we are going to give you a little bit of the background that we gave to the City Council when we got the development agreement approved a couple months ago. Eagle View Landing is the 51 acres that formerly was a farmstead. It was previously owned by the Idaho Elk's. This is a site that DVA Affiliates have worked on for several years, as we have worked through this and with the extension of Silverstone as part of Rackham and the improvements on Rackham as part of Norco's project this is now developable. However, this property has a long history, because it was annexed into the city for a large retail center in 1995. Originally in the 1995 approval it was zoned C-G, the city's most intensive commercial use, for a large retail center that would have been approximately 70 acres. It contemplated 700,000 square feet of retail around a rather significant parking field. Now, since then the -- the property has been divided. There are currently two owners. You had other applications in front of you relating to the Norco and Kissler properties to the south, as well as this one. We -- throughout the time that we have been working on this -- and, like I said, I personally have worked with Tommy Ahlquist on this almost six years as was the first time that we had it under contract and did the evaluation for what it could be utilized, we recognized that retail of this intensity is unnecessary and not conducive to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 6 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 4 of 38 what Meridian's Comprehensive Plan is seeking to do. That this really should be an employment center bringing quality jobs closer to the residents that we have and we should be promoting uses that are complimentary with respect to their times and traffic flow. So, what do we propose? We propose a mixture of office, retail, commercial, medical, hospitality, entertainment with seven of the acres in the southeast corner designated for future development that will be some mixture of office, commercial, or multi-family, but that will be subject to a future application and as we talk about phasing, that will make more sense in a moment. This is the preliminary plat with the buildings on it as -- as previously contemplated in the development agreement. It has always contemplated three significant office buildings located in this location, a mixture of hospitality and retail uses down here. The other possibility of either hospitality or office here, with medical office out at this location and, then, a future entertainment facility up here. When we talk about those properties in the southeast corner as part of phase three, it's this seven acres right here. The phasing plan was previously approved as part of a development agreement and as we have been working on infrastructure planning with staff and with Public Works, as well as dealing with market conditions, we are going to be making an amendment to that development agreement that we have been coordinating with staff on, so that this preliminary plat and that development agreement modification end up at the City Council at the same time. It's not a modification of structures, it's not a modification of any placement of buildings, it's just how do we get through the phases and what elements come first. So, this was the approved plan. The first building that we are working on and that documents are in applications for the CZC, design review, and building permit, are in for the ICCU building, which is right here. We contemplate a second office building here, which was originally intended to come forward this summer, but due to demand and due to configuration of how these are going to be, we are actually going to start with this area down here in these buildings, so that the whole western portion of the site will come in together. But we are not modifying the -- the location of the retail, we are not modifying the location of the structure here or these improvements here, it's just an issue of timing. So, as we have worked with staff on the phasing plan for infrastructure, the first phase involves and includes the construction of the main drive in, as well as all of your primary site infrastructure and utilities, which will be here in the central part of it and that's why we have proposed this phasing plan where phase two will happen in -- depending upon market conditions, just because that infrastructure is already in. So, we will have the infrastructure that's in the table to do that as we do part -- as we do phase one. And this is the exhibit that Sonya had shown with -- with that phasing overlaid onto the -- onto the preliminary plat, with the caveat that all of this infrastructure that's necessary to be extended upon the private drive that extends north from Silverstone Way, is located in this location. So, we are generally in agreement with the conditions of approval. I want to just talk about four things in our conversation with staff. We want you to be aware of it and we want to put it on the record, but it's stuff that we believe that we will be able to clean up in the next few weeks with staff before we get to the City Council. Those deal, first of all, with the buffer on the Silverstone right of way. Second, the Jewel Subdivision connection. Third, the water connection. And, then, finally, the ITD requirement that Sonya -- or ITD request that ITD -- that ITD had forwarded that Sonya shared. Silverstone Way is a public street that dead ends at this property. In our discussions with ACHD, it's been determined that as long as we build a mini roundabout Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 7 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 5 of 38 at this location that the site can be served with private access drives and that's the intention. So, we will provide the buffer that staff talks about, but we just want to be clear that when we talk about that -- the roundabout here is the terminus of Silverstone Way and so all of these areas immediately here -- immediately adjacent to this will comply with both ACHD and the City of Meridian's requirements, but it is not a public street to the north and I think staff and our engineering team -- everybody is in agreement and ready and able to work through that, it's just we wanted to be clear as to what our interpretation was and from my conversation with Sonya I think we are all on the same page. Next there is a requested condition that we provide a cross-access easement to the south in Jewel Subdivision. Now, Jewel Subdivision is a large lot rural subdivision that was platted in Ada county in the '60s or '70s and if -- we have all been doing this long enough we see these designations pop up on plats for future road easement. Ada county required them. Ada County Highway District does not recognize them and many of the property owners don't recognize them and this is something that we find with some degree of regularity in the rural areas of Ada county for plats that were recorded in the '60s or '70s. We had originally approached these property owners about the utilization of this designated 50 foot wide future road easement as a secondary emergency access and had a negative response from those owners, so we went and solved that problem elsewhere. We are fine with a cross-access requirement, but it needs to be predicated on the fact that we will reserve it and preserve it, but, obviously, we are not going to grant it and open it until some point in the future when those properties redevelop and those owners make that available. It wouldn't be a public street, because, obviously, there is not a public street that it would connect to, but we recognize the importance of connectivity and support that. So, unless and until the Jewel owners, you know, grant the reciprocal right and open it, we -- we agree with the condition, but we just want to be clear that we are not telling the Jewel property owners that they are having to open their property as part of this condition. It's a condition that your staff has recommended. There was a discussion of -- in the staff report about the water connection and, obviously, this is a big site and requires extension of water facilities through it. We understand that the issue that has been raised by Public Works is we had shown a stub of the water here to the eastern boundary. It's important to note that here on the northeast corner where the future recreational area will go, their water access and their need for where they would take their water would be on that northwest side. So, we contemplate that, yes, there would be a looping of the water through the site. The sole reason, though, that we show that stub is that at some point when Rolling Hills redevelops and water needs to be extended to Rolling Hills, we need to do that. So, I think it's just an issue for Public Works and our engineering team to work through that the reason we stubbed that to the east wasn't just to, then, stub it to the north, it's just to provide that future connection to the east to Rolling Hills when that redevelops and we don't perceive that to be a problem, because as I indicated, the water service for this parcel here is going to be up here on the northwest portion of that and that's where the water is. So, ultimately, you're going to be able to loop it up like that with an extension here to the east for a future connection. Now, the last thing I just want to comment on is we have had a lot of discussions with staff about ACHD's requirements. We are in agreement with them. ITD issues -- we have a lot of meetings and discussions with those as well and we recognize there are significant traffic impacts of Eagle and Overland and at the interstate. Originally -- originally ITD had requested that we improve Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 8 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 6 of 38 the northbound turning movements coming off the westbound ramp by constructing a third lane and our objection to that was none of the turning movements created by this project relate to a northbound turning movement on that westbound lane. It's off site. It's not related to the traffic. It's not related to traffic that we generate. They came back and requested that at the third phase or 668 p.m. peak hour that we consider a second access -- a second right turn lane here on the eastbound off ramp and that may satisfy some of those constitutional requirements, but there is -- anytime we talk about an off-site improvement there is always a concern with is the impact proportionate to what the property and the project is causing and is there actually a nexus between them. We do not deny that there are significant traffic issues out there. The issue that we see, though, is a lack of consistency in ITD's requests of municipalities, that ITD needs to get out front of these issues. We are willing to participate with our proportionate share. We always are. We are even willing to take the lead in doing it. But you can't just stick a large application with an impact that relates to improving an overall system that has been neglected by the -- the transportation planners. So, ITD needs to engage -- future developments in this area need to participate. We are more than willing to cost share, but we will work through that with staff. So, conclusions, we generally support the staff report. We will work with staff on those items and we appreciate staff's characterization of ITD's request, because we do agree that that's something that can and should be addressed in the future. And with that I will stand for any questions you might have. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone here to testify this evening for this application? Way: We do not have anybody further to testify. Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone here in the room that would like to come forward and testify on this application? Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, before we close the public hearing I would like to ask staff a question. Are you in agreement with all of the points the applicant brought up at the end? These four additional things? Allen: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: The applicant referred to that they -- they have been in contact with you and you're in agreement. I just want to make sure that's the case. Allen: While we are in agreement I believe on the -- after I clarified the street buffer requirement on Silverstone, we are in agreement on that. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 9 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 7 of 38 Allen: Mr. Wardle brought up several things that are more development agreement related that aren't necessarily the subject of this application. We are in agreement that we are not requiring any off-site improvements as mentioned in the ITD report. There is not a requirement in the staff report to provide a cross-access easement aligning with the access easement from the subdivision to the south -- McCarvel: For Jewel? Allen: South boundary. Yeah. There is -- there is not a provision in the staff report for that. So, that is something that I mentioned in the staff report that we may be considering with the development agreement modification though. But not with this application, so -- McCarvel: Then the Eagle View Landing water? Allen: I am not sure on that. That was a Public Works condition. So, any modification of that would have to be run through them. So, I would suggest the applicant make contact with them before the Council hearing. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, just to clarify about the water loop issue there. We have had those discussions. We are designing -- the recommendation of Public Works was if you're going to stub it to the east end, then, go ahead and run it all the way down Rolling Hills and we are just like that's not necessary and it's not the time for that. We are stubbing it so we can do that, but we will loop it back to the northern property boundary, it just isn't showing right now. So, we will get that solved and I don't disagree with Sonya that these are development agreement issues, it's just the fact that since this is piggybacked with a development agreement application that will come in next week, we have been trying to sort out as many of these issues as possible with staff at the same time. McCarvel: But I did have one more question for you. Do you have -- the only access in there is not really coming along where the current Norco building is, it's -- Wardle: So, there are two points. There are two public streets that dead end. McCarvel: Okay. Wardle: There was Rackham here on the west -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- which is a constrained right-in, right-out off of Overland and, then, you have Silverstone Way, which comes up here past the Norco building, which is a five lane collector with a signal at Overland. So, those are the two points of public contact. And, then, in our negotiations with Norco there is going to be a shared private drive that connects those two with an easement benefiting both of those properties for circulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 10 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 8 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Any additional questions? Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, just looking at, you know, the transportation plan and how people would be coming in and out of this site for the proposed entertainment, recreation facility on Phase 2-B, would they be going through the roundabout and straight through that or would they be cycling in the roundabout and to the east and up? What's your thoughts there on how traffic would flow? Wardle: So, Madam Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the way that this is being engineered and designed and the way it will be constructed is that we have this southern access -- shared access drive across here with a -- essentially a secondary vehicular access here and a secondary one over here and, then, it loops around. So, we -- as we have designed this and worked with our transportation team -- and this was -- this is what has taken so long with this application is sorting through with ACHD exactly how this mini roundabout works and, then, how the internal circulation works and so our traffic study has been designed -- and this has been designed so that you're going to be able to go through -- you're going to be able to go right, you're going to be able to go left and there are going to be various points of access to get back there. Now, obviously, internal circulation becomes an issue of signage, but if we provide enough alternative access points through the site, we think that helps to dissipate traffic and it helps to keep the traffic moving at an appropriate speed, because the intention is that this is a single lane through here with retail fronting on it with angled parking, so that it is intended to slow those vehicles down. Holland: Thank you. Perreault: Are those all the questions? Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126? Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Rackham Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 11 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 9 of 38 Perreault: Who wants to start our conversation? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I think it shows a lot of promise and I like the mix of uses there, instead of just all being retail. The flow of traffic I don't see being concentrated at any one time, which I think will help things through there. Rather than having all one use in having something try to go on that corner seems like it's been a long time in the making, but I do like the mix of uses on this, instead of all the retail. Perreault: Any other thoughts? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If Commissioner Cassinelli was here I think he might be happy to see all the parking. The one thing that's always a challenge for me is it's good to have enough parking, but I also don't want to see Meridian become a sea of asphalt either and so it does look like a lot of parking for -- for this application. I don't know that that's something we necessarily need to change, but certainly would have -- for something that needs this much parking I would have liked to have seen maybe a parking structure of some sort. Again, I don't know that we really have control over that, but just a thought I wanted to voice out there. Overall I like the mix of uses there. I think it's smart to have a blend of office, medical, entertainment, retail and some potential multi-family or other commercial in the future. No big concerns on the -- the general mix. Always like to see more green space when it's possible, but I think with the plan it looks like they have got a pathway that kind of goes around the site. There is, obviously, an entertainment option that's coming in the top right corner there that would be kind of a recreational amenity that might help offset that a little bit. But those are some of my thoughts. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioner Olsen, anything to add? Olsen: No, I see no reason why we can't approve this. Perreault: Okay. I agree with Commissioner Holland. I -- it felt very great asphalt intense -- intensive. I guess if you're going to have a project with this much parking that's the location to do it right there along a main area. I don't -- I don't love that much parking, but there wouldn't be a different location where -- where that would suit that I can think of. So, other than that I agree with my fellow Commissioners on the variety of actually what will be there, the variety of services that are offered to the public, and it will be nice to -- it will be nice to see something go in there. So, if there are no other comments or questions, can I get a motion? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 12 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 10 of 38 McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council for file number H-2018-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20th, 2019. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one question. Do we -- and maybe this is a question for staff. Do we need to mention anything about the four items we talked about? I know a lot of those are in the development agreement conversations, but since there was mention of those things in the staff report, especially the Public Works one, I don't know if we need to mention that. That they would work with Public Works staff to find something that would work for them. Allen: Commissioner Holland, I don't -- I don't know that any changes are necessary to the staff report, unless you're changing a condition. McCarvel: Than I will second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the application for Rackham Subdivision, H-2018-0126. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Silver Springs (H- 2019-0058) by Tall Timber Consulting and Todd Campbell Construction Inc., Located at 1035, 1157, 805 & 905 E. McMillan Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5. 19 Acres of Land with an R- 4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 57 Building Lots and 6 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in the R- 4 Zoning District Perreault: Next we will open the public hearing for Silver Springs application, H-2019- 0058. Let's start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 13 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 11 of 38 consists of 19.74 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada county, therefore, it's already in the city and it's located at 1305, 1157, 805 and 905 East McMillan Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is McMillan Road and single family residential properties in Saguaro Canyon and Larkwood Subdivisions, zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County. To the west are single family residential homes zoned R-4 in Copper Basin Subdivision. To the east is a home and landscape business, zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the south are single family residential homes in Havasu Creek Subdivision and an elementary school, zoned R-4. A little history. This property was previously platted as Lots 1 through 4, Crestwood Subdivision. Lots 1, 2, 3 were annexed into the city in 2006 with R-4 zoning. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer units per acre. Staff has revised the staff report about an hour ago based on some -- a determination by legal counsel. So, I just want to make sure that you do have the correct staff report in front of you. The one that I e-mailed -- I think it was right at 5:00 o'clock or right there abouts today. So, apologies for that lateness and I will go over the summary of the staff report. First, the annexation and zoning is requested of the eastern 5.19 acres of the site with an R-4 zoning district. There is an existing home on the property and a landscape nursery is currently operating on this site and was recently approved through Ada county to operate for an additional five year period of time. The applicant is requesting this business is allowed to continue operation in the city temporarily with a sunset date of December 31st, 2022, at the latest in order to sell off his existing inventory. This use is classified as a nursery, an urban farm, and a contractor's yard in the UDC, which is a prohibited use in the R-4 district. However, because the landscape business is currently legally operating in the county, it would be considered a nonconforming use in the city. As such the use may continue if deemed appropriate by City Council, as long as it remains lawful is not expanded or extended per the standards for nonconforming uses and that is the section that was revised in the staff report. Staff had previously interpreted that it was -- it would be a prohibited use if it was brought into the city and legal determined that it would actually be a nonconforming use, which is allowed to continue if -- if Council determines annexation of the property is appropriate. So, just to clarify that. And, then, they are proposing a preliminary plat consisting of 57 single family residential building lots and six common lots for the development of detached homes at a gross density of 2.89 units per acre, consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases as shown, with the last phase developing once the landscape business use ends. There are four existing homes and accessory structures on this site that are lots in the proposed subdivision. All other accessory structures are proposed to be removed. One public street access is proposed via East McMillan Road, an existing stub street, North Mooney Falls Way, at the south boundary of the site, is proposed to be extended with development and a stub street is proposed to the east for future extension. All of the existing homes will take access from local streets within the development, except for one. The property at 1035 McMillan Road, which is Lot 12, Block 3, is proposing to retain their two driveway accesses via McMillan and that is a picture of the home here and, then, the red arrows here pointing out the existing driveway locations. Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A3 is requested for these accesses to remain. ACHD is requiring the west access to be closed. So, that would be this one right here. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along McMillan Road, containing a five foot wide Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 14 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 12 of 38 detached sidewalk and this is a copy of the landscape plan that the applicant submitted and it does show several of the existing trees on the site. The ones with the X's through them are the ones that are proposed to be removed. This is the children's play equipment that's proposed. A minimum ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided with this development. The qualified open space exhibit shown depicts area that does not qualify and that is this small area right here at the west end of the property. Staff is recommending a revised exhibit, plat and landscape plan, is submitted prior to the Council meeting that complies with the minimum standards. A minimum of one site amenity is also required. A children's play structure and micro path to the school site to the south are proposed as amenities in accord with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single family residential homes as shown. Written testimony has been received from Dave Yorgason, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report and he will go through his requested changes. Staff is not in support of the existing landscape business use continuing operation in the city as a nonconforming use for the following reasons: First, the use is commercial and industrial in nature and is not an allowed to use in the R-4 zoning district. Second, the use is not compatible with the proposed residential uses. Third, any code enforcement issues would be the responsibility of the city. Fourth, it's difficult to track sunset clauses in development agreements and if the use is not concluded by the sunset date, it becomes the city's responsibility for enforcement. Therefore, for these reasons staff recommends denial of their proposed annexation of this parcel as it's staff's opinion that it is not in the best interest to the city to annex the property at this time. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat request per the conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends if the Commission and Council determines it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time, as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for staff to prepare recommended development agreement provisions related to the existing use and for the applicant to submit a copy of the site plan approved by Ada county. As is, if the landscape business comes into the city, they are no longer tied to the terms of the conditional use permit that was approved in the county. So, without a development agreement and provisions related to the use, which would probably include the specific use standards for such uses in the city, they wouldn't have any regulations associated with it. If Council -- if Commission and Council agrees with staff's recommendation, staff is recommending the project is continued to a subsequent hearing date in order for the applicant to submit a revised preliminary plan that excludes the subject annexation area and if that happens, their access from the south here would not be feasible as a public street at this time. However, there does appear to be adequate room for a 20 foot wide emergency access for secondary -- secondary access for the site. So, those are the issues we are looking at. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 15 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 13 of 38 McCarvel: Sonya, does maybe a sunset date of December 31st of this year help at all? Allen: That would be a question for the applicant. McCarvel: Okay. I mean as far as staff is concerned for the complications on the city side of it and enforcement and all that kind of good stuff. Allen: If we bring them in and we annex them, then, it becomes the city's responsibility. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: If we say that -- and this was the way it was written in the original staff report is probably what you're referring to, but originally I had said staff would support annexation if the business terminates within six months and the six month clause was before the property was annexed, meaning it would conclude before the development agreement was signed. So, then, it would not be an issue for the city for enforcement. If that helps. Perreault: Okay. Are you finished with the staff report? Allen: Yes. Perreault: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward. Allen: Dave, I will get your presentation up there. Yorgason: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Dave Yorgason. For the record my address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise. And I'm here on behalf of myself, as well as Todd Campbell Construction. We are the two developers of this development. We are master planning together. And appreciate staff's thorough analysis. This is a complex site and the -- so, it's not uncommon to have in-fill sites be difficult. So, I will just keep moving into the project here. As you see the -- the layout, we have -- we have worked through various issues, but let me give you a quick summary of this. First of all, the Silver Springs development is two developers working together to master plan the community, which we think it is better to master plan than piecemeal this development. It will be a total of 57 homes, four existing and 53 new homes, all of which are within the compatible size and homes in the surrounding area. It's four parcels in total -- totaling about 20 acres, three of which were mentioned were previously annexed into the city as R-4 and one parcel as an existing parcel in the county, requesting the same zoning. We are not requesting rezoning of the other three parcels. It will be custom homes or semi-custom homes. Again, consistent with the surrounding area. We are also providing the pedestrian access -- an additional one for the school site, as well as a children's tot lot play area. This is in-fill development, which always seems to have challenges. So, if I can move here -- here we go. What are those challenges? First of all, we have access issues. We have a challenge with designing around existing homes and competing with a substantial number of trees -- existing trees -- try to preserve as many as we can, as well as the existing landscape business operations that were Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 16 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 14 of 38 referenced earlier. A quick summary as ACHD staff report did come in late, though, it should be in your most recent packet I understand. We agree with all the conditions of approval of ACHD. We don't have any objections to them and it's a staff level and so it's complete. With regard to the city staff report, this latest version I will try and refer to that one as I think that's what we are talking about today. I have made some adjustments to my presentation in the numbering sequences and just have a few proposed hopeful changes to the staff report. Let me hit the big one that was discussed earlier and that was the existing landscape business. Out there there are actually three existing landscape businesses that operate in that area. Ours is being included in this development is one of the three. It is by far the least intensive of the three landscape business operations. They have recently went through the process. He is a pretty good rule follower. I have actually been very impressed with his efforts. The other two I don't want to disparage, but I haven't seen the same efforts, where this gentleman currently renews his conditional use permit with the county and it was recently approved a couple weeks ago with no opposition and the same -- virtually the same conditions as before. However, he is not a full-fledge contractor where he's bringing lots of trees and a heavy contract use, where some contractors adjacent are doing. He is not bringing anymore inventory in. He's actually more of a tree farmer and the bulk of the one thousand trees on the property are existing trees in the ground and you can't just pull them up and haul them off and go plant them, but he tries to estimate how many trees, based on the work that he has in front of them, and you have to, then, dig them up when they are dormant and that's how the business works for him. He doesn't have a lot of staff. It's not a retail operation. It's a very small operation, which is very different than the two other adjoining parcels. As a side note, he has been recently approached by one of those operators that if this property is not annexed into the city would you, please, sell to me so he could expand his business even further. So, I would agree with staff that this type of use is not appropriate in a residential area. However, I also believe it is in the city's best interest to get them under the control of the city, so that these types of operations don't expand even further and have a greater impact on the residential areas. So, with that in mind I do believe that adequate timing is needed and so our request, when we get to that point with the development agreement with annexation of the site, is that the city does annex the property with a condition for the sunset clause, as well as to make sure that he doesn't expand the business further and maybe more or less comply with similar conditions that are already in place, but put upon him by the county. The landowners, as I approached him today, as I said, well, yes, I could probably live with the date that staff had mentioned, the June -- I think June -- Sonya, looking it up for a second. It's June 2022 is what was originally discussed. There is -- there is a fear of the market. You just never know where it's going. Recognizing really his -- his preference would be to be allowed to have the currently allowed five years and so the June 2024 is the seller's request. This is an old condition, but I will just highlight it, recognizing it may come up as we get to the development agreement. There is consideration of expanding and adding sidewalk across the entire frontage of the development. There is no problem with the first three parcels that will be developed in phase one. However, with this eastern parcel there is a problem and several facts to it. First of all, this homeowner -- he lives there and he doesn't just travel back and forth, he actually lives there with those nursery trees in the back and he has substantial landscaping with a waterfall for privacy and sound buffer that would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 17 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 15 of 38 have to be removed in order to put the sidewalk in the location ACHD would require it to be. So, the hope is -- and he -- well, I will say it this way: The other concern would be is we install it where the approximate locations for the berming, there is still technically access points that he currently utilizes, two for the construction business and one for the -- for the home, with the sidewalk behind one point and low down another point is that accommodates existing driveway accesses. Those areas have got to be torn out. So, it would just be a waste of money to put those sidewalk pieces in. And, lastly, again, with those two landscape businesses further to the east, this would -- and I hate to say it, but it really would be a sidewalk to nowhere. There is no intentions or plans for those two businesses to turn into a type of use that would allow or require a sidewalk to be in place. So, we are not saying we won't put sidewalk in, we are just asking we put it in at the same time as the rest of the phase two development improvements go in. That would be our request. Now, this is an important concern of ours. It's listed in the current staff report as A.1.b. There is a requirement for the cul-de-sac length on the western side. We were working with an existing access problem for the site. There is an easement that was recorded in the first phase of the Copper Basin development on Red Horse Way. On our western boundary it's a 50 foot wide ingress-egress access. However, it's an easement, not a public right of way. And the city and ACHD have asked that we approach the Copper Basin HOA and see if they would cooperate and be willing to utilize this as a public right of way and short answer is never would that be allowed and ACHD legal research didn't determine they cannot require that upon this developed as well and so with that in mind we are very restricted in our design options with the site. To show this illustration here, the yellow arrow is where that 50 foot wide access easement is, but it's not for a public right of way and public use and this red arrow points to the cul-de-sac of concern. It's approximately 50 or 60 -- about 60 feet longer than -- than the 450 that's desired by the city standards. We have looked at a lot of variety of options and alternatives how to design this. Every time we come up with something that's more inefficient, but still the same length of cul-de-sac. Our ask is that this condition be waived and deleted and allow the slightly longer cul-de-sac for this development. Just a couple of minor items. Staff had mentioned allowing the existing access for 1035 East McMillan to retain their current access. We wrote this response to the city prior to receiving the ACHD staff report. I have talked to the owner at 1035 who will stay in this home by the way. He is -- he is the first owner of the home. He has lived there since the '70s and just a couple of key points. ACHD does support one single access as it aligns with the Larkwood Street, which is the key point there, and so we are requesting -- I don't know if this commission can make this determination or if it's by Council, but we are asking that the City Council grant this waiver that's been -- we know it's been allowed in a few other locations in the city, but either delete the condition A.1.d as written or modify the condition to allow the existing access until the property redevelops and there is the arrow pointing to that access. Lastly, real quickly, there is condition A.1.e and A.2.e, the request for a common area -- additional common area pathway to McMillan on the eastern portion of the development. We are requesting that not be in place and the reasons why our as follows: First of all, we met with city staff to identify the pedestrian and street connectivity from the development. There was an initial request to have pedestrian access to McMillan. As we worked through the access issues we were -- we were determined that the only way to have the vehicle access is, of course, to assume access on McMillan. So, now we are providing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 18 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 16 of 38 both pedestrian and vehicle access with the new entrance. We are not aware of any comp plan requirements for spacing. We think it's more of a nice to have, not a true requirement to have secondary pedestrian access, frankly, requires to do this to design a lot of existing trees -- we will probably have to lose another lot with the development to accommodate this and there is -- there is plenty of interconnectivity within the neighborhood adjacent to the east when that gets developed as well. So, our -- our ask is that a second access -- a second pedestrian access not be required or just allow the main entrance, which would include pedestrian access suffice for that request. Therefore, we asked that condition A.1.e and A.2.e be deleted. In summary there is two developers working together trying to do a master plan for development. It will be a quality development with -- compatible with the adjoining surrounding areas. It's an in-fill development which has several challenges as listed and request approval to the changes as I note here with regard to the annexation of the five acre parcel and allow the business operations to continue, as well as delete the conditions as listed and, then, grant that waiver for a single access for the home on 1035 McMillan. Thank you for your time. I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay. I have one for you. Has there been any conversation about -- about you purchasing -- the developer purchasing that eastern parcel, holding onto it, leasing it back to the tree farmer and, then, you know, doing a modification to the development agreement at the time that he is done selling everything and going from there? Yorgason: Madam Chair, actually, yes, and he said no. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. In fact, he asked me if I would put an offer together and I spent time doing it and, then, he said no. Not because of value, but because he changed his mind. Perreault: I see. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone here signed up to testify? Way: There was no one signed up to testify. There were two that signed up just as a neutral, so I don't know if they -- Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to come forward and speak on this application? Please state your name and address for the record. Reed: I'm Jennifer Reed. 4989 North Larkwood Place and I am the HOA president for our subdivision for Larkwood. I'm new to the board, so coming to this meeting is a little bit new for me to figure out exactly what I'm supposed to be doing and understanding, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 19 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 17 of 38 the neighborhood does have a -- quite a concern for the traffic and it having only one access to -- in and out of all those homes where we already have major traffic problems getting in and out of our neighborhood with sight -- line of sight and accidents that happen on the road, because we only have one access and we have to stop for pedestrians and, then, we have to stop for the traffic. A left turn currently is not very easy, especially during the high traffic hours between 3:30 and 6:00 o'clock. So, having to stop again for more traffic with the neighborhood coming with only one access, they could be turning right, so, then, therefore, we have to watch again for more traffic from Saguaro, which is where we used to be able to, which is the light. It would now be right by our subdivision, having to -- not even have access to go to the left and traffic is continuing to increase upon McMillan, so our major concern throughout the neighborhood is that the traffic is going to increase exponentially. It's already increasing just with the city -- the general traffic and stuff that we have. So, having a subdivision there with the two lane road in and out is already a big problem for our subdivision. So, that's our major concern with that many houses and only having one access and it's straight onto McMillan is a big concern of ours and I don't know if they mentioned with the application the size of the -- the lots that will be going there and so we didn't know the size of the families and cars and how much traffic will be coming in and out there is kind of -- one of our big concerns. Perreault: Where is the entrance to your subdivision? I'm sorry. Is it to the east or the west of the -- the light on Copper Basin? Isn't there a light there? Reed: Yes. There is -- there is the one at the light at the Copper Basin. We are to the west side? The Locust Grove side. I don't know my east and west. We are between the light at Locust Grove and the Copper Basin. Perreault: Okay. Reed: We are right across from the home that is -- that is trying to only have the one driveway come. Their initial driveway it comes right out of our subdivision. So, the home that is existing has a rounded driveway where they go in one way and come out the other and our subdivision is right across from -- from -- Perreault: On the south side of the road? Reed: Yes. Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Reed: The north side where the -- yeah. Perreault: Okay. Are you -- are you across McMillan from them or -- Reed: Uh-huh. Perreault: -- are you -- okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 20 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 18 of 38 Reed: Yeah. Perreault: All right. Any questions for -- Reed: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this application? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Graham: Laird Graham. 1215 East Green Haven Street, Meridian. So, the comments that I have have to do with irrigation water and I guess I might ask does the Commission want to hear about this or do I have the wrong forum? Perreault: It depends on what your concerns are. Graham: Okay. All right. So, the applicant's properties are served by the Parkins Nourse irrigation lateral, which is part of the Settlers Irrigation District, as is our property. Our property flood irrigates and we take -- there is multiple issues here. Number one is I haven't heard anything about where they are going to get their irrigation water. Perhaps they are going to get it out of this lateral and, then, I would be curious to know what the system they are going to use to assure -- to deliver irrigation water to the homes. They have an issue with -- this is the third subdivision and the one coming next on your agenda will be the fourth in Crestwood Estates and we have an issue in Kingston where they take their water for their homes out of the ditch and they need continuous delivery, but we flood irrigate and we take all the water out of the ditch for a period of time, thus they can't give continuous delivery, because we take it all for a period of time when it's our turn, so to speak and they didn't make a provision for that and that created a conflict that we have kind of had to work through. We are in a period of plenty -- plenty of water in the last few years and so it hasn't been -- it was resolvable, but if it was short of water we would probably have a bigger problem than we do. Also the water that serves these four properties needs to stay in that lateral. We don't need -- at the time we don't need all that water, but we need the volume that it creates, so that we can flood irrigate our properties. Also the water is coming at these properties and they need to make a provision to drain it, because if it doesn't drain it backs up and floods those of us that are going to flood irrigate and so I would be curious to know how they propose to handle that. I assume it's going to be by a drain and it needs to be properly sized so it takes it all, otherwise it backs up and we have had some issues with that in the past. Perreault: Is that everything? It looks like the three minutes is up or close to it. Graham: That's my concerns. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, if there is no one else here to testify and you have no other questions for staff, we can close the public hearing. Can I get a motion? McCarvel: We need the applicant to come up. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 21 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 19 of 38 Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Please come back forward. Excuse me. Yorgason: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Dave Yorgason for the record. Not a problem. Happy to answer all the questions. I heard a couple of questions, one from Mrs. Reed about the access and traffic and lot sizes. Lot sizes are consistent with the R-4 zone in the surrounding areas. I think the minimum for that zone is 8,000 square feet, all of which we exceed that. The homes, again, will be consistent -- or similar. Not the same as, but similar to the surrounding homes. Not theirs, because that's -- that's an old county subdivision with large lots, but all the other urban subdivision houses. If we go to access and traffic, she's right, I wish I could have access to Red Horse Way. That is by far the best solution to this development. It's not an option. And so we are -- we put it in the location that ACHD told us to put it in and so that's why this development complies with ACHD's conditions and so, unfortunately, you may not like that answer, but -- but the reality is is to -- to develop this site that's where this will be and -- and yet it's also spaced adequately to provide better -- better safety than just somewhere else. Secondly, Mr. Graham had asked some questions about irrigation. We have had several conversations with the irrigation district -- a couple with Settlers Irrigation. Also with a gentleman who has been serving, though I don't know if he currently still is, with regard to the irrigation board with the Parkins Nourse Lateral. He is also a resident of the Heritage Common Subdivision. So, he kind of dual serves in those roles. We have had several conversations with him as well and we have looked at a couple of different options. I agree with -- with Mr. Graham as far as the rotation of water is not ideal. It is very problematic. In fact, I know Kingston has a greater problem than we do, because their rotation is much shorter than ours. They are one five acre parcel, we are four, and so, in essence, we have four times the amount of water that they do. So, we have already been working through a solution on that and we -- we actually have two different alternatives, one of which will be tested later this summer, which if -- if it satisfies all of the users, including Mr. Graham, then we will actually look at some -- some alternatives for point of diversion changes. If that's not satisfactory, then, we will just deal with the water that we have coming to the site. We have several private wells that are on site that are ample, including the landscaper who uses it for irrigation, that we use as backup water and supplemental water for this development. So, based on our analysis we have two options of how to irrigate this -- the site. The other question was asked regarding wastewater and we plan on piping it, just like it traditionally does. The water historically came from the east and flow to the west. These four parcels are the last four parcels in the line of water and once it hits the end it goes to the north to McMillan to the large canal on the north side of McMillan and we will just dispose of the water where it did traditionally. So, no changes there also. I think that answers the questions, Madam Chair, but I will stand for any questions you might have. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just out of curiosity, what was the reason on why Red Horse Way wouldn't be an option? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 22 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 20 of 38 Yorgason: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, the easement is not for public use. It was -- it was just an access easement for an adjoining parcel. If you read the language it's vague on the plat. It's unfortunate it wasn't dedicated for public use. It wasn't a -- more importantly dedicated as a public right of way. So, that's the first part of it. So, we are required as landowners to approach the adjoining neighbor to see if they would be willing to grant it as public right of way and, honestly, that's -- in my over 20 years of doing this probably one of the most, if not the worst, most difficult homeowners association meeting I have ever attended. The way I was talked to. And that's okay. That's part of my job. So, I did as I was asked to do to try to sell it and try to show how this is better for everyone, but at the end of the day I was without common sense and didn't have care for children and so forth and so we tried, but legally we cannot make it happen. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Before we -- we move to deliberation, I almost want to make the recommendation that we keep the meeting open during deliberation, because there has been a lot of concerns from staff about wanting to possibly continue this, so it might be good to just keep it open while we deliberate. Just a suggestion. McCarvel: I agree. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: I guess we will start with the annexation in general. I do think the sooner we can get it annexed probably the better and, then, that will at least allow these to develop as they need to as they can -- you know, as far as this plat, but agree that if we do annex it -- we need to give staff time to word it properly and get the agreements in place. I do think probably given this area and how developed it is all around it, I would -- I would say the sooner getting it into the city is probably the better, even with the sunset clause. I'm not sure that it should be up to 2024, but -- I don't know -- I don't know if there is a whole lot of things in here to look at. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 23 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 21 of 38 Holland: I would tend to agree with the statements that I think that we might need to allow the applicant and staff to work together on that five acres, because I feel like extending it to allow them to be there until no later than June 2024 leaves quite a bit of room for longevity, but maybe there is some sort of middle ground that they could work on, whether it's six months or whether it's a year, because I understand that if you have got a business, especially when it's landscaping, you have got lots of trees to move and it's not just as easy to uproot them and move them, they would need some time to kind of close out operations and understand staff's concern that once it's R-4 it's not an allowed use. So, maybe if we were to make a recommendation for continuation I would just ask that staff would work on what date they would feel comfortable with, if they were to let that be grandfathered in, until a certain point in time and, then, we can make that recommendation to Council. Looking at the other conditions they asked for, they requested to delete the condition that the applicant install the sidewalk in front of McMillan at the 1157 East McMillan. Certainly understand their concerns there, but I know it's always challenging, because if you don't put sidewalks in when development processes are going through they don't come back in later. But I think their request is that they would still would put in the sidewalk, they just didn't want to do it at the beginning part of the development. McCarvel: Right. Holland: So, I don't know that I have a concern with phasing of it, as long as it gets put in there at some point. So, I guess I'm kind of neutral on that one overall. Allow the western cul-de-sac to be allowed. Again, I think that's a staff and ACHD item of concern, because I don't know what's allowed in code and I know they can only make so many exceptions on some of those things. But, again, I'm kind of neutral on that one, too. And, then, they also asked us about the existing residence at 1035 East McMillan, granting a waiver. That's not up to our discretion, that's up to City Council, because we don't have the right to give that waiver. But we can certainly make our comments known. I don't have a concern with them keeping one access point, but I think having two accesses on the driveway probably is more than they need. So, that's where I'm at. McCarvel: Madam Chair, didn't they say ACHD has already said they can only have one. Holland: Right. McCarvel: That is the one to the east I think. Holland: The only other thing they asked us about was to not require the common lot pathway and, you know, I don't know what our -- what our pathway master plan shows in that area, but if they want to have a pathway that is connected with the rest of the system I would say we encourage that, because there needs to be more pathway connections in Meridian. Those are my thoughts for now. Perreault: So, it's my understanding that the owner of that eastern property asked for the five years, but the applicant had originally stated three years in their application. So, I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 24 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 22 of 38 think that's what -- and that's what the applicant is requesting is to have five and, then, of course, the staff had -- had mentioned something along the lines of six months that goes along with the schedule of development, so that the city would not have to police the situation. So, it sounds like the applicant looked for three years if -- if it's something that we recommend to City Council that they be permitted to proceed with annexation. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I guess I have less heartburn over it being that it's not retail, but it is pretty much just trees being grown there and dug up when they are dormant. So, kind of in the offseason anyway. It's not as if they are -- you know, it's commercial going in there amongst the residential, it's just watering trees pretty much. So, I guess I am -- I am leaning a little bit towards -- I mean I think that in and of itself lends itself to go ahead and get it annexed and get the plans in place. But I'm open to having the applicant and staff work that date out. But I don't think it needs to be 2024. Within -- somewhere between six months ago and like two years at the most. Perreault: That leads me to a question for the applicant. Mr. Yorgason, would you mind coming forward again. Is there a possibility of creating an agreement with that landowner that if the trees are not removed within the time period decided that -- that, then, that would be your opportunity to purchase the property from him within a given period of time? Do you think he would be agreeable to that? Yorgason: Madam Chair, we have a -- just to be full disclosure here, our contract is to purchase the property as we -- as we go. So, we are, obviously, purchasing the portion of phase one within days after the approval by City Council and we have the option to purchase phase two already. It's just a matter of as soon as the trees are gone. As I was leaning over talking to one of our partners over here, we are going to use as many of the trees as we can on our site. That's more efficient for us. Cheaper for him and for us. There is a lot of efficiencies with that. But, again, there is a little over a thousand trees. We can't use all of them on our site, as much as that might look really nice, that's a lot of trees for 53 houses and so -- so we will -- obviously, he has other customers he sells them off to and that's why I was comfortable with a three year time frame. Six months, two years, is not going to work, just because of dormancy and just all those trees won't disappear in one year, recognizing when the clock may start, but that's our goal to answer your specific question. If you want to put that condition in I don't know how you enforce it, but that is our plan. Perreault: Yeah. Yorgason: Just -- if you want to put it in there I'm not going to oppose it, probably, I just don't know how you enforce that if I can't -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 25 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 23 of 38 Perreault: I just wasn't sure if -- if you had a purchase agreement with him or if there was a closing -- if you had already come to an agreement on a proposed closing date of three years or if he was insisting on the five or how that was -- was working for you. Yorgason: And, Madam Chair, there is no hard closing date, only because we really kind of don't know when this gets approved and, then, he has an idea how often -- how many trees he uses per year and so that's kind of where that three year time frame came. But I recognize it could be two years. It probably won't be five, unless the market shifts pretty quickly, but one year is not infeasible. Hope that helps. Perreault: Just the point that you being in possession of the land makes a big difference; right? Yorgason: Madam Chair, that's -- I have offered it once, so I will offer it again. He will probably stay in the home. But even as of early as yesterday he's thinking I don't know if I will stay here any longer, because his business operation will get chewed up so quickly with our first phase that he might move quicker. I can't hold him to it. We don't have a contract that says that either. But he is understanding that this is not the right location for this type of use, especially as the homes get closer to return. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Yorgason: I hope that helps. Holland: One more question. Yorgason: Sure. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Would there be a chance -- and this might be a question for staff -- if they were to enter into some sort of formal contract with the landscaping company, would that help appease some of staff's concerns about transitioning out of that use? Allen: Madam Mayor, Commissioners, that's really a decision for the Commission and Council. Perreault: Thank you very much. Yorgason: You're welcome. As stated before, I will say it on the record, we are the purchaser of the whole five acres, just in two phases, and it could happen in two years. It's not going to happen in five. But it will happen as quick as we can. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 26 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 24 of 38 Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I still feel like there might be some conversation needed to have between staff and the applicant about the dates and what would make staff feel more comfortable before I feel comfortable moving this forward, because we can make a recommendation and say three years, but I would still rather have staff feel more comfortable with that and maybe if they were to work out some sort of formal agreement before it comes back to us again, that could be something that helps mitigate that. That was why I brought up that suggestion. But, again, that leaves the city in charge of managing something that they don't want to manage, but, anyway, just a thought. I would love to hear my other Commissioners' thoughts on some of the other conditions, too, that we had requested of us. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I know you're in the middle of deliberations, but I think I -- just want to clarify for the record what our intentions are for the landscape business. So, as you know staff recommended denial of the annexation. In our presentation to you it wasn't for you -- it's not that we are not willing to work with the applicant. The intent is that it -- the Commission wants to recommend that use continue to City Council and we ask that you would continue the project out, so that we can bring back some DA provisions that you feel comfortable with. I think that's the intent, not staff -- it's not staff working with the applicant to be comfortable with the business, it's what you feel comfortable with as you make a recommendation to City Council and ultimately becomes a City Council decision. But we -- if that's the direction you want us to go, we need the time to come up with the DA provisions to support the annexation request. That's, really, the intent for the -- the continuance. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I do agree that -- with Commissioner Holland as far as the sidewalk. I would be comfortable with that in phase two. It doesn't make any sense to dig it all up and be doing stuff when it's not ready -- especially when the sidewalk doesn't lead to anywhere yet, but I do think the sidewalk needs to be there, but I would be comfortable with it in the phase when that part of the property is being done and with the cul-de-sac and the driveway, I think that was City Council's purview I believe. It doesn't seem too excessive, but I think that was -- Allen: Madam Chair? Excuse me. If I may. There is no condition of approval for the sidewalk to be constructed in phase one. That was in a previous staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 27 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 25 of 38 Allen: So, please, make sure you're -- you're referencing the current staff report in any changes you might make to the staff report. With the removal of the development agreement provisions there is just the preliminary plat conditions now. McCarvel: Okay. So, those other -- Allen: Not an issue on that one. McCarvel: Those items that were listed on the summary page of the applicant's presentation we don't need to address. Allen: They were in reference to the previous version of the staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: The timing -- if you -- like Bill referenced, if the Commission is leaning towards recommendation of the annexation, it's purely the Commission's purview on the timing for that to remain in effect. So, if you guys would make a decision on that then -- but a continuance so that staff can come up with recommended development agreement provisions. McCarvel: Okay. So, then, you want to address all those other items in the -- in the continued version and they don't -- we don't need to address those in a motion tonight, we just need to continue the whole thing. Allen: I'm not sure what other ones you're referencing. McCarvel: On the applicant's -- key record, applicant's presentation and last -- that summary page there, they were wanting a couple of items deleted. A.1.b, A.1.c, A.1 -- Allen: I believe those -- Dave, do those reference the previous version of the staff report? Yorgason: Madam Chair, if you like I could just help here for a minute. The conditions referenced are primarily, first of all, the pathway that goes to the eastern side. That's what those two conditions are, Sonya. A.1.e and A.2.e. A.1b -- now I am going from memory, but that's -- these are all new to the new staff report -- the new revised final staff report we are referencing here. If you go back up I will find it real fast. Allen: The requirement for the common lot with the pathway to the north to McMillan would be something that you need to make a recommendation on if you wish to vary from the staff report. So, Dave -- excuse me. Dave did include all the -- McCarvel: Okay. Allen: -- current -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 28 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 26 of 38 McCarvel: So, if we want a pathway to stay, that's the way it's written in the newest version and so we don't have to mention it at all. Allen: Right. McCarvel: Okay. Yorgason: Madam Chair, the other one was the western cul-de-sac, that A.1.b. That was the western cul-de-sac. Allen: And, Madam Chair, there is no provision in the UDC to vary from that maximum length of 450 feet. The variance doesn't apply and neither does alternative compliance. Perreault: In other words, that can't be waived. Allen: Unless city attorney has any recommendation on that. Pogue: No, I do not. Perreault: Is that clear to all Commissioners? Holland: Madam Chair, just to summarize what we just talked about. So, if we make a motion to continue this tonight, we would still need to address what I want them to talk about and it does in the staff report and, then, when it comes back to us we would make a motion to City Council if those things still hadn't been changed, if we wanted them changed in the next one. So, in my summary of what we have talked about so far -- and I would love to get your other thoughts, but we would want to continue it to let staff work on a new staff report and a development agreement application for that landscaping business, if we decided we wanted that five acres annexed as part of this application. The installing the sidewalk in front of 1157 East McMillan, we can make a recommendation that they remove the phasing requirement and the western cul-de-sac we can't change anything about, so we will just ignore that. And, then, granting a waiver for the existing resident for the transportation access probably isn't relevant at this point, because, again, we are not moving it forward to Council to make a recommendation for continuation and, then, there is the common lot pathway that we still need to address. It looks like staff has requested in condition A.1.f that they submit a revised qualified open space exhibit, because they need to do some -- some changes and modifications. So, I would say leave that in there. McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: Sonya, I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear on where that proposed pathway would go. Their east boundary? Allen: Now I'm trying to remember if it was from here or from here. Just one second here. It was in the second phase. In the brown area. That's general location. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 29 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 27 of 38 Perreault: In between the lots? Lots 12 and -- Allen: Yeah. Anywhere there would be fine. Perreault: Okay. And is my understanding from reading the application that that landowner is not in favor of having a pedestrian pathway next to his property, just -- any other questions for staff or for the applicant? So, I think that with a motion we need to be clear whether we are intending on recommending approval of the annexation or agreeing with staff in denial of the annexation and, then, all of the items that we would request that the applicant to work on and our comments to state the -- each section of the staff report clearly. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would support -- I think it is in the best interest to annex the property at this time and to allow this development to move forward in a reasonable manner, so I would -- I would be in favor of continuing it to allow the staff to put the verbiage in that it needs to have. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I agree with that idea of continuing it to give them time to work through this. Perreault: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair, I would be happy to make a motion if everybody is ready for me to or if anyone else would like to they are more than welcome. All right. I move to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the hearing date of -- I'm going to pause for a second and look at staff for direction on when they would like to move that to. McCarvel: The 25th. Perreault: Do we want to -- do we need to close the public hearing, by the way, before we do this? McCarvel: No. Perreault: Oh, that's right. No, we don't. Holland: Does that give you enough time to work on a development agreement -- July 18th. I haven't made the whole motion yet. Sorry. All right. I move to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the hearing date of July 18th for the following reasons: That staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 30 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 28 of 38 would work on a development agreement for the application related to the landscape business operation and how those five acres would be transitioned in -- at the 1157 East McMillan and when they would be able to phase out of operation. That the applicant would work on a new revised qualified open space exhibit and landscaping plan that complies with the minimum open space requirements, but before that comes back to us. And I think that's all I need to include right now. Olsen: I would second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2019-0058 to the date of July 18th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: So, we need to go ahead and make a motion to close that hearing then, correct, before we open the next one or are we -- Pogue: No. We are fine. C. Public Hearing for Caldera Canyon ( H- 2019- 0062) by Vanessa Klaus, Located at 1294 E. Leigh Field Dr. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of Sixteen ( 16) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 2. 83 Acres of Land in the R- 8 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Modification to an Existing Development Agreement for the Purpose of Removing the Subject Property from DA Instrument 106064914 to be Placed in a New, Separate Agreement Perreault: Just a little out of order from what we usually -- what we usually do. All right. Good. Okay. All right. So, now we will open the public hearing for Caldera Canyon, H- 2019-0062 and begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last project before you this evening is for a preliminary plat and development agreement modification. The subject site is 2.83 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-8 and is located at 1294 East Leighfield Drive. To the north is residential zoned RUT in the county. To the south is East Leighfield Drive, which is a collector and a single family residential subdivision Quenzer Commons, which is zoned R-8. To the east is single family residential, zoned RUT in the county. And to the west is a single family residential subdivision, Quenzer Commons, which is also zoned R-8. This property was annexed and entered into a development agreement with Quenzer North Subdivision in 2005. It was final platted as Lot 2, Block 31, within Quenzer Commons No. 10 in 2006. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community, with a neighborhood center Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 31 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 29 of 38 overlay at the top. You will see that in the center map here. Tonight we are -- the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of 16 building lots and three common lots on 2.83 acres of land and a request to modify the existing development agreement to remove the subject property and to enter into a new development agreement. The applicant proposes to construct 15 single family residential detached dwellings, with one existing home to remain at the southeast portion of the site here, Lot 12, Block 2. The proposed gross density is 5.65 dwelling units per acre, while the net density is 6.91 dwelling units to the acre, which falls slightly below the mixed use neighborhood with a neighborhood center overlay target density of eight plus dwelling units per acre. Given the in-fill nature of the 2.3 acre site, staff feels that the proposed development is generally consistent with proposed designation and is supportive of the density. Lot sizes are consistent with a R-8 zoning district. One public street access is proposed from East Leighfield Drive here. It stubs to the north for future redevelopment of this larger RUT zone, zoned commercial here. The existing home is proposing to maintain its current access East Leighfield Drive. The driveway is right about here. East Leighfield is a collector road. The existing home is also going to maintain its current access there, via the existing driveway. The UDC requires that all subdivisions provide local street access to any use that currently takes access from a collector road. In accord with UDC standards staff is recommending that the applicant extend a local street stub to the east, somewhere over here to this RUT zoned parcel and also extend the driveway to the west to provide access to the existing home in lieu of the existing driveway. Council to vote on a waiver to UDC 11-3-A3 is requesting that the current driveway access to remain and to refrain from extending a local street to the east. If Council does not grant both access waiver requests, the applicant will need to redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 12, Block 2, the parcel to the east. There was a redevelopment plan that was a redevelopment exhibit that was submitted with the application, showing how this parcel would generally redevelop if the current land -- or current property owner were to move. Generally they are proposing one extra lot if that were to happen with a hammerhead driveway and also common driveways that was submitted showing four homes that will be taking access from the common lot. These two will be taking access from Heritage View Avenue, which is a public street that's being proposed. Conceptual building elevations were submitted and generally looking like this. It will be pretty consistent with other homes that are in the area, all single level. And with that -- oh. I guess written testimony was received from the applicant's representative Penelope Constantikes. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and we will stand for any questions. Thank you. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? Would the applicant please come forward. Constantikes: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Penelope Constantikes, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 82701. As staff has indicated, the applications for before you this evening are for a subdivision and for a development agreement modification to remove the existing subject site from the Quenzer Commons No. 10 development agreement and implement a new development agreement. As you know, Caldera Canyon is an in-fill subdivision west of Locust Grove between Ustick and Middleton and it's your evening to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 32 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 30 of 38 deal with this general square mile of property that's almost fully developed. At least 90 percent of the square mile is fully developed. There is only about six parcels remaining that are large enough for more than one lot or up to a few lots, with the largest parcel being north of the subject site and we just saw four of those parcels with the Silver Spring Subdivision application. The lot sizes that are proposed will be comparative -- comparable with a variety of lot sizes in the vicinity and the architecture will complement the homes in the vicinity of the site. This subdivision does benefit from the existing road network and proximity to schools, public parks, and commercial services. Other than the street being constructed with the subdivision, no other road improvements will be required. Another benefit of this subdivision is it will position the parcel to the north with connectivity and services when development occurs on that parcel. So, I would like to just go directly to my comments regarding the staff's conditions of approval if that's okay. So, the first item is the shared driveway near the north boundary of the site that's going to serve the current four proposed lots. We provided some illustrations demonstrating that there could be one more lot or internal access for the existing residents and if you could put up the -- the one with the blue house that shows -- or the blue -- that's the second one. This one here. That's correct. So, there is really only two options. We can add an additional lot in the future or we can put in an internal driveway, which is the next one with the pink. There. So, if we were to do an internal access point for the existing home, there won't be any landscape buffer along Leighfield, because we will have to get into it in order to provide enough radius for people to get turned around and into the garage, so -- but with the -- the ability now for this home to be sold as a horse property, I don't anticipate that the additional lot is going to show up at the end of that shared driveway for some time to come. So, as I have discussed, the -- the ability to add an internal driveway to the property without deleting a lot to the east of the site of the existing home is just virtually impossible. Based on the most recent revisions to the ACHD policy for average trips on local streets, the threshold is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. With Leighfield classified as a collector, that ACHD threshold is even higher. Based on the most current counts there are 1,499 vehicle trips in a 24 hour period on Leighfield and that includes the trips that are generated by the existing residents. We are requesting a waiver from City Council to allow the existing residence to retain its access to Leighfield. It won't provide -- it won't generate any kind of an additional transportation burden, because those trips are already included in the existing trip counts. Since it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to provide internal access and Leighfield is not operating at even a local street threshold, we believe our request to retain that existing driveway is a reasonable one. The memorandum that I provided to staff and late -- thank you for accommodating me, Stephanie. Discusses the shared driveway comments. The paved area meets the fire department standard from length and that's 150 feet. The remaining portion of that common lot will be used as a stormwater detention location. In the event there is a local -- or an additional lot added in the future, a full hammerhead would have to be constructed and you have already seen that illustration. Access for Lots 7 and 11 can be accommodated without extending the pavement distance as shown on that shared driveway illustration that we submitted with our application. Another option if it's needed would be for Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 6 and 7 to have a short common driveway before they are separated to feed to the garages of those two lots. So, with the landscape buffer required between the driveways, we may need a waiver for that or submit an alternative Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 33 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 31 of 38 compliance application, which is -- we would be happy to do. We would be happy to entertain other options if someone can think of something and any that we would be happy to work with the fire department to try and resolve this somewhat minor question. The possibility of a stub street to the east was proposed by staff. The project team feels that this would create an unfair burden on the subject site, because at least one, if not two lots would be lost. In addition, since the city has designated the area surrounding the intersection of Locust Grove and Leighfield as a location for a neighborhood commercial, we believe that cross-connectivity between the subject site and the parcels at least would be less than ideal and would compromise the residential character of the subject development given that commercial development is likely to occur on the parcel to the east. Additionally, another stub street will produce density to an even more undesirable level and, finally, a stub street to the east would be blocked on the eastern parcel because there are three existing structures. The greatest distance from the property line is 118 feet and I don't know that a stub street could be put in to the east property and not wipe out at least one of those structures. So, we would really prefer to not have a stub street. I think it's combining residential traffic and commercial traffic is good to be avoided if at all possible. I also provided an illustration of the immediate vicinity of the site and anticipated traffic movement which -- there it is. Okay. So, what I did was I just put arrows to locate where -- along with our stub street where all the access points would be. So, we have got one stub street in Quenzer. The northern parcel already has access for these two, if not three to Glen -- Glen Haven and, then, the fourth would be our parcel. The eastern parcel -- the parcel just east of us has got about 492 feet of frontage on Leighfield. So, I think that there is enough room there for the eastern parcel to provide access with another connection to Leighfield and not violate a safety policy for offset between arterial -- and that's a minor arterial roadway and another street access off of a collector. So, we blanked it -- another connection on the eastern parcel would be reasonable, maybe in line with a street that is across from this eastern parcel on Leighfield. Mr. Graham, who spoke to you about the previous application, spoke to you about irrigation water and he is adjacent to us. He is the northern parcel. So, our project engineer has a very preliminary irrigation system design in mind. He is aware of the fact that we have some irrigation water delivery constraints that we need to deal with and I would suggest that Mr. Graham -- Derek Carter, who is the project engineer, and Dan Young, who is the owner of the eastern parcel, get together between now and our City Council hearing and come to a consensus on irrigation water and the delivery system. In addition, the existing home has a well, so we have a secondary source of water should we need it, along with domestic water. So, I think it's going to take Derek working with Mr. Graham and Mr. Young, which he is happy to do, on solving any irrigation constraints that we have. The landscape buffer is shown in a common lot -- or common lots on the plat and currently the frontage is planted with mature arborvitae. They are big and beautiful and it creates a solid visual buffer right now. Rather than removing some of the healthy plants that are there, as suggested in condition 3-A, we would propose that these plants -- as these plants reach their end of life cycle that they be replaced with trees and we could certainly add that to the development agreement. It just seems a shame to take out healthy plants for trees when we can make a commendation for future planting of trees when these arborvitae start to die out. In conclusion, we do request that the project be approved as proposed with the following changes to the site specific conditions of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 34 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 32 of 38 approval -- and I brought an extra copy with me for you all, so that you could have it to work off of. All right. So, item 2-B -- and that is the -- we request the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that the existing access for 1294 East Leighfield be retained. Under Item 2-C, which requires a stub street to the east, we ask that that condition be removed. Item 2-F, the applicant will work with the fire department with regard to our shared driveway. In the event that if it's needed the applicant would like the option to provide shared access point off of a shared driveway for Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 6 and 7. Under Item 3-A, rather than removing the existing plants to add trees, we would request that this be changed so that when the plants reach their end of life cycle they can be replaced with trees at that point in time and that can certainly be added to the new development agreement. And, then, under Item 7, the shared driveway is exactly 150 feet deep, which is the limit of the fire department for a distance without having to have a hammerhead. So, in the event the fire department is not comfortable with the driveways has shown on the shared driveway illustration, which I have not put in front of you, but I will. The applicant request a waiver to allow a short shared access point for Lots 10 and 11 and 6 and 7, unless there is another alternative that I'm not aware of and we would be happy to entertain that. And the north neighbor, Mr. Graham, in attendance this evening and there is an item with regard to fencing along that north boundary line that we will sort out with Mr. Graham before we get to City Council. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question is if -- this area is designed to be created at some point of neighborhood commercial and there might be commercial uses on the east side. You talked a little bit about some of the arborvitaes that are there, but what kind of buffering is there going to be between those homes being constructed on the east boundary of the property line to transition into the commercial? Is there going to be -- Constantikes: There will be a fence. A fence. Yes. Perreault: Stephanie, can you bring up the shared drive exhibit, please. Leonard: Madam Chair, yes. Just a second. Sorry. Perreault: So, Lots 6 and 7, is it not possible to put those so that the -- the front is facing to the east and, then, put a common drive in between Lot 6, 5 and 4 to access the property to the south? Is there not enough width on that eastern boundary of the southern lot, Lot 12, to pull a driveway around on the east side? Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah. There is not enough -- yeah, I can see that. Okay. If there is no more questions for the applicant, is there anyone signed up to testify. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 35 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 33 of 38 Way: There is not anybody signed up to testify that signed up with the clerk. Perreault: There is no one signed up to testify? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and speak? Okay. If there is no more questions for the applicant, could I get a motion to close the public hearing. Olsen: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Caldera Canyon, H-2019-0062. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair, one more question for staff. Could you pull up in the -- the future land use map again for this site so we can kind of look at how those parcels sit around it? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, this is the future land use map here. So, it shows mixed use neighborhoods on this actual -- on this parcel and, then, the neighborhood center overlay is actually across all these. Holland: So, it -- I know you may not have another application in right now for any of the neighboring parcels, but could you give any direction to what you would advise future applicants to try and considering in some of those neighboring parcels around this? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I think if future applicants were to come in specifically to the north or to the east we would try to encourage them to have maybe more of a mix of uses, something that would be more neighborhood serving. So, commercial would be good or a mix of housing and commercial. If when they came in it was big enough to annex and zone appropriately. So, there are a mix of zoning designations that kind of relate with -- with the future use map designation, but it depends on the project, obviously, too. Holland: And one more question on that. Are any of -- this specific property is already zoned R-8, they are just going through their preliminary tonight. Are any of those other parcels nearby, are those both zoned agriculture right now or are they zoned -- Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, they are both zoned RUT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Since everybody else is jumping up and down to speak -- my only concern looking at this is overall looking at the future use map and having that be neighborhood Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 36 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 34 of 38 commercials that were -- it's kind of a funky parcel for future commercial with the L-shape that would be left around it. Obviously, this piece is already zoned R-8, so we can't really change that in the conversation, but that was just one of my observations. So, they asked us to consider several things. I really don't have a ton of concerns, except for how it transitions to some of that neighboring commercial and that's why I was asking about landscaping, too. I worry that a fence may not be much of a buffer if you have a neighboring commercial use come in there. So, I don't know if there is anything we want to talk about as far as -- if -- if there is any buffering that we need to have them do, but -- Perreault: I would assume that the applicant of that commercial project would be required to do the buffering, so -- McCarvel: Madam Chair, that's how -- that's how I'm remembering it as well is it's usually -- it's the commercial development that would have the responsibility to put in -- probably put a 25. Perreault: Depending on the application. Usually I try to make my comments last, but I will go ahead and -- a stub street to the east -- I initially had some concern about, but now knowing it's a possibility that that would not develop into residential I'm not as concerned and if they are able to take access off of Leighfield potentially across from the street that's on the south side to the south of the eastern property, then, that might line well for access from there for the future. And, then, as far as the -- as far as the shared drive, I'm not sure that that is something that's in our purview. Isn't that really for Council to decide? Do we need to make a recommendation on that? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's actually something that they would need to coordinate with the fire department. They are the ones that can kind of determine if that can be lengthened or -- or what kind of measures they would need to use to do something different. My main comments that I made in the staff report was that it was just a little bit odd of a configuration to have the driveways curving like that. So, I was just -- basically just mentioning that I want them to coordinate with the fire department to -- to figure out if they can link them in a little bit and if that would be okay without having to do a hammerhead or some other mechanism to make it turnaroundable. Perreault: Oh. Okay. Okay. So, really, we don't need to take into consideration the -- the redevelopment exhibit or the -- the -- those other options, because that's just something they will work out. Leonard: Madam Chair, yes. Those were mainly just so you could picture of what might happen in the future if it is to redevelop. As Penelope was saying, I don't -- I don't foresee it probably redeveloping. It's -- larger acre lots are in demand, so I can see most people might want to keep it that way. But it's just intended to be kind of a visual aid if it does happen. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 37 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 35 of 38 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If we were to modify those conditions on seven and 2-F that relate to the shared driveway and what the fire department requires, I think I would just make that a condition that they work with the fire department on items 2-F and seven before City Council to meet whatever fire department is going to require of them and that would leave that open to the fire department and the applicant to work on. Madam Chair, while I'm still talking I just want to go through the other ones they have. I don't see a concern with removing 3- A were rather than move the plant -- to modifying 3-A to say rather than move the plants replace them at the end of their life cycle. I know that gets a little bit tricky, too, how do you enforce that and when do you define when the end of a life cycle is of a plant, but if you can preserve vegetation I don't see a concern with that one. And, then, I agree with your comments about the existing access off of Leighfield and keeping that. And the same comments about -- I agree with you on your comments to the east. I don't see it necessary if it's going to be commercial that develops on the east side of the property. You need to have another stub street there. Perreault: I mean we don't know that for sure, but just the six blocks there. If that -- if that section was longer -- if there were more lots, then, I would be more inclined to recommend that that stay. Is that something that we can -- Stephanie, is that something that we can actually -- is that a code provision that can be waived, the stub street to the east? Leonard: Madam Chair, both of those conditions two -- let's see. Sorry. 2-C and 2-B, they are to be waived by City Council, so -- but your recommendation would be helpful to them, too, in their deliberation, so include that. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Stephanie, do we have any pictures of what that line looks like? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, yes, I will pull that up. Hold on. McCarvel: Just my thoughts here. Once those go they go quickly and it -- are we maybe looking at -- go ahead and keep the -- oh, all on there. Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, one of the options, too, rather than including it in the DA would be to have the applicant seek alternative compliance with our -- as an administrative approval as well. So, that's another option. Just a reminder. Perreault: Stephanie, if they do that, then, they are -- then when these trees come to the end of their life, there is no longer a requirement to have anything there if they have got -- if they receive alternative compliance would those not have to be replaced? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 38 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 36 of 38 Leonard: Madam Chair, if they agree to landscape it in the way the alternative compliance it would have to be maintained that way, so if something were to die it would need to be replaced. Perreault: Okay. Leonard: The landscape that was approved. As I said, an alternative compliance with landscape on the plat. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I would -- Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: -- be in support of basically all that's been discussed so far here in the very orderly manner as suggested by Commissioner Holland. Thank you for keeping the notes. Perreault: Commissioner Holland is a master at these motions. Holland: Happy to let someone else make this one, though. McCarvel: Huh-uh. Perreault: Commissioner Olsen, do you have anything to add? Olsen: No, I don't. That's it. Sorry. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Item 2-B in the staff report reads: Lot 12, Block 2, shall take access from North Heritage View Avenue in accord with UDC, unless waived by City Council. So, I just want to make sure if we include the change there, they want the existing access to be retained. That's what she had mentioned when she came up. Perreault: So, they are requesting a waiver for the access. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: For the record, for City Council I think I am supportive of that access to remain there. I don't think it's an overly busy road and that drive could probably stay there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 39 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 37 of 38 Perreault: I agree. Holland: Do you want me to try and make a motion or does anyone else have -- Perreault: I'm just reviewing the staff report to make sure I have -- Holland: That's what I was trying to do, too. Perreault: Give us a second to review the staff report and make sure we have addressed everything with the right numbers and letters. So, 2-F, I don't think we specifically discussed that. Applicant shall clarify the alignment of the driveways to Lot 7 and 11, Block 2, with a common driveway and shall coordinate with the fire department. So, we want to leave that in the staff report as is? At least that's my -- Holland: I would agree. My -- Madam Chair? My comment was that the applicant would work with the fire department on items 2-F and item 7 on meeting whatever the fire department needs for requirements. We could leave those in the staff report. Perreault: So, we just won't change anything on those. Right? Holland: Yeah. All right. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland, go for it. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 20th, 2019, with the following modifications: On 2-B that the existing access be retained. On 2-C that we strike the requirement -- or recommend that Council -- Perreault: Let me ask you really quickly. I don't think that we are -- I think instead of stating that we want a modification made on 2-B, we should just say that we are recommending that Council waive the requirement, because if we -- we are not technically trying to modify the staff report I don't think, so -- Holland: Okay. I'm with you. Okay. I'm going to restart. I will just start over with the -- I move to recommend approval to City Council that we would be in support of Council waiving the requirement and allowing the existing access to be retained with Item 2-B in the report. Looking at 2-C, that Council would consider allowing the applicant to not be required to have the east stub street. That the applicant would work with the fire department to meet their requirements for Items 2-F and 7 and 3-A, that rather than remove the plants and plant new ones, that the applicant would either seek alternative compliance with staff or that they -- Council would allow them to replace those plants at the end of their life cycle as requested. McCarvel: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 18, 2019 – Page 40 of 159 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2019 Page 38 of 38 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council for application number H-2019-0062. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, before we conclude this evening, I did just want to let you know that Stephanie has accepted a position at the city of Boise. So, she will be with the city -- this probably her last time that she will be presenting to you as part of our team, but I wanted to let you know that we wish her the best and she's done an excellent job for us and I'm very proud of her for the job that she's done. Perreault: We were just getting you trained. Leonard: Yeah. I was just getting used to hear my voice on the microphone and everything and now I'm leaving. Perreault: Congratulations. Leonard: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the hearing for June 20th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED �III9 J SSI, RREAULT - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK