Loading...
2019-11-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 7, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 7, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Members Absent: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Lisa Holland and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Others Present: Andrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance _______ Lisa Holland _______ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ________ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like -- at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of November 7th, 2019, and let's start with roll call. Madam Chair -- or, Madam Clerk, would you like to call the roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We don't have any changes tonight, so can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as stated? Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 4 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 2 of 45 A. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage (H- 2019-0094) by Chad Olsen, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North (H-2019-0105) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln . Fitzgerald: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have four items on the agenda. To approve the minutes for October 17th, 2019's, Planning and Zoning Meeting. The October 24th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage, file number H-2019-0094 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North, H-2019-0105. Anything that we need to pull out of the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda. Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: And at this time I would like to give you all a -- kind of an understanding of how we run our public meetings. We are going to open each application and we will start with the staff report. The staff will report findings regarding how the item -- and I can't get my notes -- excuse me -- adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and development code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their case and after the applicant has finished we will -- we will open the floor to public testimony. There is a sign-up iPad in the back, so if you all would like to be heard tonight make sure you sign up in the application -- application you would like to be heard from. If any individual is here for an HOA and there is a group that will show their hands where they will give up their time to this person to speak on the HOA's behalf, we will give you an extra ten minutes to speak for that group. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will come back forward and we will give them ten minutes to re -- to respond to public testimony and close the discussion and after that we will close the public hearing and we will deliberate and determine if we can make a recommendation or approve the application, depending on what it is. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 5 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 3 of 45 Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by SI Construction, Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way 1. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R- 4 to the R- 15 zoning district, and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat for the Re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4. 62 Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots. Fitzgerald: So, with that we have a -- first on the agenda we have Goddard Creek Townhomes, which is H-2019-0068 and we -- this is a continued public hearing, Bill, and I want to make sure, because Commissioner Cassinelli, wasn't here previously to give a rundown and for everybody in the audience this is an application that was continued for -- to ensure we had adequate public comments and there were some folks who couldn't be here, so, Bill, if you can give a -- kind of a brief overview, so make sure that Commissioner Cassinelli is up to speed and, then, we will -- if anyone has already spoken we would ask that you don't come up, because we already have that on the record and everybody was here, except Commissioner Cassinelli, so I want to make sure we get everybody -- public comment that wants to talk tonight, but, Bill, if you can start this off with a brief staff report and we will go from there for this application. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you stated, this was continued from the previous Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of additional public testimony. I will run through the specifics of this application for you once again and remind you of what I brought up at that hearing and, then, also share with you some of the revisions that the applicant has made to the plan based on those conditions in the staff report. So, if you recall this property is located on McMillan Road and Goddard Creek Way. So, it's the northwest corner. This property was annexed and zoned in 2002 as part of the Lochsa Falls development. As part of that approval there was a development agreement that allowed for a use exception for office uses on this property in the R-4 zoning district. In 2017 this property came back before this body with a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change it from high density residential and office to mixed use community. At that time there was also a concurrent conditional use permit for a multi-family development on this particular site. As this property -- or as the project moved through the public hearing process the applicant was concerned that Council would not approve the request for multi-family on the site and he subsequently withdrew that request for the multi-family component of this particular project. So, currently the comp plan amendment did move forward with approval and there is currently a storage facility being constructed along the west boundary of this property. Council approved the DA amendment to allow the storage facility, but wanted the site to remain R-4 with the use exception for offices. So, the applicant is here this evening, again, to discuss developing this site with 41 townhome units. Again, this is not multi-family, it is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 6 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 4 of 45 townhomes, which is by definition single family. The site consists of 20 percent of open space and three amenities, which consists of a dog park, a tot lot and a covered picnic area. What makes this project unique is that there -- it's served by public -- or private streets, because both ACHD and city staff do not want access to McMillan Road and there is an existing common lot along the east boundary that was platted with the Lochsa Falls development that prevents access to Goddard Creek, other than West Selway Rapids Lane to the north, which was -- provided cross-access to this property and that is also a private street. So, ACHD doesn't allow public streets off of private streets -- to have private streets going back into the public streets, so that's why the applicant is proposing private streets at this time and in order to meet the requirements of code for private streets, he had to have -- provide an MU development and that's why you see that central open space in between the units in the middle of the development. So, one of our conditions was to have those fronting on the MU, rather than having the rear of the units on that in order to meet UDC standards and support this private street application. So, again, there is also alternative compliance for that. Our director's approved for alternative compliance to allow the common drives off the private streets and, then, also approve the private street application as well. So, it does not take -- require any action of this particular body. If you recall in my testimony last week or two weeks ago I also mentioned to you that the public record -- there was nine residents that testified in opposition. Primary concerns were traffic and parking in the area. In order to address that and based on staff's recommendation, the applicant did provide guest parking within this facility, which isn't necessarily required by code, because the townhome units that you see here actually meet the code requirements for the parking pad and a two -- two car garages for each unit. So, again, they heard staff's concerns, they were informed of some of the neighborhood opposition that we dealt with on that project back in '17 and now, again, was addressed with this application. So, again, staff is recommending approval with those changes and I just -- before I conclude my presentation, one of our other recommended changes was to relocate the common open space along McMillan Road. So, you can see here the applicant provided a revised exhibit. The open space shifted to the east and the two units that were on the east side have moved over next to these two units. So, before the open space was central in this location with two units on either side. Based on our recommendation currently the water and sewer stubs for this property are located in this area, so in order to facilitate the extension of those facilities it was easier to have the applicant redesign their plan, relocate the open space, increase and connect two larger open spaces to make it more usable and move this over here. Again, applicant's obliged staff in doing so. We believe that this plan is better suited this way and, again, staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have questions? Cassinelli: Yes, Mr. Chair. Bill, can you just explain to me, even though these -- you mentioned that as townhomes these are -- these are single family residences. So, can you explain to me how we are getting that versus a multi-family with the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 7 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 5 of 45 Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's very simple. In our code there is certain definitions for each of the housing styles in our community. The multi-family development is three or more units on a single parcel. In this particular case the applicant's platting the lot underneath each one of the dwelling units and having shared walls. So, in this development when you got three or more units attached it's a townhome. When you have two units attached it's single family attached homes. So, essentially, where you are -- the central units in the middle of development, those would be considered townhomes, because it's more than three units. Each unit is on its individual lot. On the perimeter we have the single family attached and, then, there is a -- there is another townhome of three units here in the southeast corner. So, that's really the definition. And, then, when we apply the parking standards for single family dwellings, you have to have the two car garage and the 20 by 20 parking pad in front of that and that's the distinction here where in a multi-family development you will have covered parking or surface parking. You don't necessarily need a garage spot. But when we were looking at townhome developments, single family detached, single family detached homes, duplexes, all of those types of housing require the garage requirement and the parking pad in front of them and that's why they are more like a single family than a multi- family development. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward? Scott, do you want to come -- Noriyuki: Thank you, Commission. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. First of all, I want to thank Bill and staff, as well as the Commission and your comments, as well as the neighborhood. We have -- we have held three neighborhood meetings and gleaned information from them, as well as you, as well as my client and staff. With that said, I have just got a couple of things I'm going to go over, so we are not being redundant. The distinction with townhouses, which is very very critical, is these are not apartments. They are owner occupied. They are parceled with literal soil, dirt, underneath them, which allows the underwriters, banks, to approve mortgage loans more easier than say a condo, if you will. So, the product, which is very necessary in Meridian, is residential opportunities. We currently have here a lot of rentals and we have a lot of single family detached, but that jump for a lot of kids or young families or single families to transition from the rental ultimately to the single family is the step. So, it's a step-up product and it's verified, only -- only five percent of product in the City of Meridian currently fits within this need. It's a demand. With that the only other thing I want you to key into that I asked Bill -- and I don't know if you had a chance to put it forward within your staff report, I presented an update today to go into your staff report that addresses all of the traffic, as well as the school concerns. With that I will stand with -- or for any questions. Fitzgerald: Questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chairman? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 8 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 6 of 45 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Scott, you just mentioned -- and I was going to ask you if you -- if you knew numbers and, then, you threw out the five percent that meet this criteria in the city. Where -- where did you get that from? Noriyuki: I am citing that from an article that was printed by the Idaho Statesman that -- bear with me here. I want to highlight it. That was dated late last year that cited Caleb Hood, as well as another staff member. Bear with me here. I will submit this to you. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner, do you have additional questions? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Noriyuki. Noriyuki: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. At this time, Madam Clerk, do you have folks that are signed up to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show one. Janie Pollman signed in, but did not indicate a wish to testify. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone additional in the audience that would like to testify? Sir, do you want to come forward. The gentleman in the blue shirt. Bellamy: And I did sign in, so -- Fitzgerald: And, please, state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Bellamy: Good evening. My name is John Bellamy. I live at 2464 Wapoot Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Okay. So, I want to testify I attended these meetings back when the discussion was about the Selway apartments. You had all of us sign in at that point in time on paper. Everyone signed in against with one exception. That one exception happened to be an out-of-state developer from Spokane, Washington. Yet this project was approved. It was approved on the little known high density housing to be developed in the Lochsa development at some point in time to be determined in the future. That was the catchphrase that got that product approved. Okay. That time has come and that time has gone. The ten acres that Selway sits on was zoned R-4 and, then, we now have 170 apartments there. Crime has gone through the roof. Our house values have tanked. Traffic has become a disaster. But yet now you want to do the same thing on 5.3 acres by putting in 40 townhomes. Okay. By definition they are not high density. Common sense tells me it's very high density. The intersection of Goddard Creek and McMillan, if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 9 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 7 of 45 you look on your map that you guys have up on the boards up here, you can see that the traffic coming from the east, that is virtually a blind intersection. ACHD has the big white line that you are supposed to stop behind until you can pull out into clear traffic. You can't see the traffic with the structures that are further to the east. No one stops short of that white line. I have seen as many as two cars in front of it and it's going to cause a major problem. In parking right now with Selway, they can't park in the Selway apartments. They are parking on all of the access streets. Apgar Creek for one. Those people that get frustrated with trying to get out of Goddard Creek onto McMillan are now using Apgar Creek and north on Goddard Creek as alternative routes. Unfortunately, they are doing it at excessive speed and excessive traffic. Those streets were not built to handle that. We have already had one child killed on Goddard Creek. We don't need additional. Talk about the schools. My wife is a teacher in the Meridian district. Has been for over 30 years. And I will tell you that the schools in north Meridian are overcrowded. I have a daughter attending the high school at Rocky Mountain. We have a fairly new high school and within, what, a year and a half, two years they had portables, because they don't -- can't handle the student population. We have shoved so much in north Meridian. We can't handle anymore. It's bad enough that our quality of housing has gone down and our home values, but now we are getting Costco, we are getting Winco. We got the super Walmart. North Meridian cannot take much more. And this 5.03 acres was zoned R-4, four residents per acre, and there were a lot of us that looked at that when we purchased our homes there. This is governance by the people, for the people, by the people. Listen to your people. You didn't do it on the Selway. The people didn't want it. You all approved it. Please listen to your people on this project. Thank you for your time. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: I resolved our technical issues. I can give the list now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Thank you for your patience, everyone. The next person I show signed in is Danner Patchell. Patchell: Good evening. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. My name is Danner Patchell. I live on 2371 West Apgar Creek Drive there in Meridian. So, two houses right there from Goddard. I just wanted to take this time and I appreciate the time, seeings as I wasn't here last time, to kind of state my case. I have a six year old and I have another child that is due any day now and we already, as he -- as he talked -- you know, the last gentleman talked about, we have already had one kid killed on Goddard Creek. I am -- I fear for my child because of the parking and the traffic issues, especially the speed. Like he said, they no longer go out Goddard Creek, they come across Apgar and go out further -- go out further east. So, I would just like to take this time to ask you to, please, not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 10 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 8 of 45 change this to an R-15 and keep it as an R-4, to not exacerbate our parking problems, our traffic problems, our speed problems and that's all I have to say. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, the next person signed in is -- or are Rod and Angie Ludlow. Okay. The next person is Penny Fisher. Fitzgerald: Ma'am, thanks for being here today. Yeah. Please state your name and your address for the record, please. Fisher: My name is Penny Fisher. My address is 2382 West Apgar Creek. I reside in the home that is kitty corner directly from the proposed project. With that said I am going to be affected by this directly. As it is right now there is not a single day that goes by that I don't have parking of different people in front of my home, which means when I have friends that want to come and visit they cannot even park in front of my own home. That's one of the reasons why I do oppose this. They are saying it's 5.03 acres of land, but when you look at it they are actually only able to build on 4.62 acres of the land. So, you are trying to shove 44 -- 42 units on 4.62 acres. One of the things I'm -- when we bought and purchased our home we did look at the townhomes -- or not the townhomes, we looked at the area. We did look at the planning and zoning and we looked at the master plan and on the master plan it had commercial high density, the Selway apartments, and homes. So, our subdivision did allow for high density and Selway with their 121 units, did completely comply and take that. What they are asking us to do is once again change the zoning, because, again, as they -- without being able to change it from an R-4 to an R-15, this is not feasible or pliable or -- and without putting 41 units on it, it comes down to money. It would not be -- if they didn't put the 41 units on there it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't make them any money. So, I feel like for the developer they don't care about the livability of the land. They don't care about the master plan of -- of Meridian that has been created for the livability of it. They don't care about the traffic. They are not in charge of the traffic. They don't care about the home values. They are not in charge of the home values. They don't care about the schools. They are not in charge of the home values. What they care about is purchasing and developing the plan for money and so with me being right there I have talked to many many people who are concerned about the traffic. They are concerned about crime. They are concerned about the livability going down. So, what I ask for you guys to consider is -- I know that you guys are not in charge of all of that, but you are in charge of the livability and sustaining and keeping our master plan. So, I'm asking you to once again stick to the master plan and do not change it, keep it up at the R-4 and do not change it to the R-15. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel Fisher. Seth Patchell. You can yield your turn. That's fine. Noah Patchell. Same? That's it for testimony. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 11 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 9 of 45 Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application in the audience? Any questions for staff before I get a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, and the application -- yeah. Sorry, Scott. You want to come back up and talk. Yes. The applicant would like to come forward and close the discussion. Sir, thank you. Thank you. Our good chair isn't here, because she won an election yesterday, so we are very happy for her, but I'm trying to take over. Noriyuki: Fair enough. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank the testimony from the neighbors. I understand the concerns. I want to go over a couple of things. I wrote them down. So, I will try to be concise and quick. Number one, this area has changed from the original development at the onset years and years ago, the master plan, and, of course, this entire portion of the city has morphed and it's changed. So, I want to point that out. And over the years there have been multiple zone changes and development agreement modifications. What we are doing is we are adjusting to market demand, the needs of the city, and what's appropriate. That said I want to make clarification that I'm not from Spokane. I'm not the original developer. I have nothing to do with all the original applications. We are coming forward with what we believe is a good idea. We are born and raised Idaho. Period. Just saying that. Property values are not at risk. In fact, we are coming in with a very high end product from our standpoint. It's going to be quality built. It's not derogatory. It's not rental. It's not cheap. Traffic studies. I hope each of you had a chance to see what I submitted today as far as -- as far as the calculations that prove out, per ACHD and national standards and studies and experts, that prove out these 41 -- the staff report is incorrect stating 44. There is actually 41 townhouses proposed. It proves out the trip capture on a daily basis would be significantly lower than light office. So, from a traffic standpoint we are actually less of an impact. Furthermore, I hope you -- and you can see the links and the research points that we have that prove this out. Furthermore, from a school standpoint I'm a parent and I get that. I mean growing pains in the City of Meridian, what are we, one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. I have spoke with the vice-president of the school district. I have an understanding and I gave you links of the school -- the new schools that are approved to be built. The schools that are going to be expanded by 2020, which is at or about the same time that we would actually complete construction and per their calculations and census data, we are going to add 34, 35 kids to the school age. Very small. With that said I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? And thank you for reminding me. I appreciate it greatly. Make sure you got to close. Noriyuki: Thank you. Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0068. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 12 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 10 of 45 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: My fellow commissioners, the application is presently before you. Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I never reviewed the minutes from the last one. Did you guys have any debate? Fitzgerald: We talked about it a little bit on certain components of it, moving some components around and kind of where the staff had gone and talking about the product mix in the city. We talked about that, too. But there wasn't a great deal of that. I think we had -- had a conversation about continuing this before that and so we didn't get deep into it. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: I have a -- Bill, I have a question for you. I don't know -- going back to -- I know when we reviewed the last the -- the multi-family back in 2017, we talked about the Selway apartments a lot. Was that -- and I don't know if you recall from that. Was the Selway apartments -- were those originally supposed to be on this land and they got pushed to where they -- they got pushed back to where they are now? Do you recall? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, this was always the location slated for the Selway apartments and it was the -- this entire front edge was always -- was going to be office -- Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: -- is what the original plan was and that's -- that's why when they came through with their comp plan amendment two years ago and we wanted to try to -- you know, as -- as this commission knows with mixed use community we try to at least get two distinct land use -- we want three distinct land uses on the particular property. In this particular case just to the west of this site is BridgeTower development that has some vacant office lots and some vacant commercial at the corner of Ten Mile and McMillan and so we used that as a barometer, say here is the commercial component, we are going to have storage. This is the other component. And, then, the multi-family was the third component to kind of tie in and blend in with that mixed use comp plan changes that we were processing back in '17. But I worked on the Selway project when I first started with the city and my recollection is that it was always part of a PUD -- approved as part of that PUD for 171 units and it was zoned R-4. The city actually recommended a condition of approval that they rezone it from R-4 to R-40 and the Council denied the rezone and that's why it remains R-4 today with the 171 units on it. The reason why the apartments went forward -- and the -- the Council couldn't necessarily deny the project based on the public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 13 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 11 of 45 testimony that the -- the gentleman was up here testifying is because it was entitled with the PUD and there was no mechanism for the Council to deny it. It was already, essentially, approved with the PUD process. All that we were doing at that time was making sure that it -- it integrated with the neighborhood and that those were the findings that the city made and that's why the apartment was built. But in relationship to this project right now it's zoned R-4, but the DA says that they are allowed to do office uses. that's currently how its structured in today's world and as I mentioned to you in my presentation that's what the Council supported two years ago, that office was a better use for this and so they, essentially, denied the rezone for this piece, too. It was R-15. Those R-40 -- they were a lot -- they were proposing I think 82 units. They watered it down to Commission had concerns with the multi-family, that it was going to be too dense, not enough open space, parking concerns with that project. So, you guys continued it out and they lost units, brought in more amenities, more open space with that multi-family project and you guys had recommended approval, but, again, at the time that it got up to Council just felt office was better and so the applicant elected just to withdraw their application rather than take the chances with a denial and ultimately it was -- got withdrawn and office uses stayed on the site. Cassinelli: Was that in '18? Because I know in '17 we recommended for denial on it. Parsons: I believe you continued it out for the apartments to get modifications, but, then, you forwarded it on, if I recall, but I don't know if you actually partially denied it. Fitzgerald: I think we have seen it three times. I know we have recommended denial once, recommended approval once, and, then, this is the third time we have seen it, if that's what I recall. Cassinelli: I didn't look at it. I looked at the one -- I was reading through the one that was -- that we recommend for denial and the other one I thought was just for the storage unit. Fitzgerald: I think we split it up and, then, sent one on and kept one not going forward or something. I think -- Cassinelli: I think the last one in '17 was the one that was recommended for denial. Parsons: Partial approval. Partial denial. I think there was something that was -- there was two CUPs that went concurrent with that comp plan change. One was the apartments, the other was the storage. So, I stand corrected. If you guys recommended denial on it, rather than approval, then, I stand corrected and you went forward with a partial denial on the multi-family component. You felt it was too dense. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think that's what happened, because we split it in half. Cassinelli: While my mic still on, I will go ahead -- Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 14 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 12 of 45 Cassinelli: -- and make my comments. I -- I like the product. I like -- I think there is a need. We have got -- I mean multi-family as far as apartments have been exploding and going up all over, but there are -- I don't think there is a lot of -- now that -- the -- the number that Scott put up, that five percent number, had a mix of -- it was multi-family and included townhouses. But I -- I don't -- I'm just trying to picture in my mind townhouses around Meridian and I don't think there is a lot. I know for -- you know, for young -- for young families it's -- it's definitely a need and it's a -- we haven't needed it in the past, because single family homes in Meridian were always so cheap and so -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: But now they -- now they are kind of out of control. So, townhouses are a great way for, you know, somebody starting out to -- to own and do that. So, I really like that. My issues with this -- looking back and what I saw and what I recall is we denied the -- the residential portion of that based upon a lot of factors. Dense -- density being one. Changing of the DA -- the original DA for Lochsa Falls included the 171 multi-family and that's what was put in was -- with the Selway apartments and now we are looking to change it up and add more residential units and I know if I was -- if I was living in there I wouldn't be happy if I bought within that -- in that DA is what it is, now I'm trying to go back and change it later. I -- you know, I don't like -- I just -- I don't like it. I don't like it from that standpoint that it -- we are trying to change the DA for that. I know we changed the zoning of it to get -- to get the -- the storage in there and when you look at the mixed use community and having three -- three different types of usage, I know that -- I think Selway apartments are -- are separate and that's high density, but, really, kind of included in that little pocket there as far as being mixed use community. So, there is your high density residential for the MUC. You have got the storage unit, which is one aspect. Now you're looking for another and that's why I think -- I mean to me the office -- to keep it as -- you know, to have it with the office would be a good use of that land. The other issue I have with this is that we are looking at two steps up. Not from R-4 to R-8, but we are going -- we are going all the way up to R-15. So, we are looking for -- for -- for a two step up and that is -- it's a complicated piece, because, obviously, R-15 fits in the MUC and this one doesn't have the -- if you look at it as an MUC it doesn't have the residential component, but the Selway to me is that residential high density component of an MUC, even though I don't think the Selway that -- that's not in this -- that parcel is not part of the MUC, so it's kind of confusing that. So, the way I stand I like the -- I like the project from what I see of it and I think there is a need, I just -- messing with it -- you know, changing the DA when people -- they bought in Lochsa Falls with the understanding what that was going to be and, then, you know, instead taking two steps up in the -- in this -- I mean if we are looking at it like that. So, those are my issues with it. Those are my concerns as -- as a result I would personally probably vote to deny based on those. Fitzgerald: So, could I ask a quick question? So -- and I will ask you and, then, Bill, too. Everything that is -- that is being submitted in this application goes with the DA; correct? So, they -- they can't come back and change it, but that's not coming to us again, but just -- I mean I'm making sure that there is an understanding. So, we are going to maintain and if this was something we move forward with or not. But the DA -- it would change to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 15 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 13 of 45 have this product type elevation setup. So, it's not that there is something to come back in and let's go build R-15 and increase the density later on. They would have to come back to us again. So, I'm just making sure that it's clear. If it goes -- this -- everything that is in this package goes into the DA. So, they have to build this product or come back and ask for something to change. Cassinelli: This product is in the DA? Fitzgerald: It would have to be. It goes with it. Cassinelli: So, we would have to change -- we would have to -- if they are looking to amend the DA. Fitzgerald: So, you want to clarify, just to make sure we are on the same page? Parsons: I'm looking at the staff report. Give me a few minutes here. Cassinelli: Because that's -- that's my understanding is part of the application was to amend the -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. I agree. Cassinelli: Yeah. Fitzgerald: But is -- and all this -- this -- the plat and the elevations and what they are proposing would go into that modification. So, like if they were going to do something different that was even denser they would have to come back and ask again. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Bill, also -- as part of the comments on -- last meeting with this was even though it's R-15 pretty much for the setbacks. It's just a hair over R-8. Is it -- yeah. It's -- the density is like nine -- nine point something. I mean it's not pushing the limits of the R-15, it's just that for the setbacks of the properties, but -- Parsons: So, Commissioners, looking through the development agreement modification portion of the staff report, yes, right now, just to clarify, the density is 8.87 dwelling units to the acre, which is slightly above the medium density residential designation, but this is mixed use community where we anticipate densities between six and 15 dwelling units to the acre. So, it even falls in between the midpoint of that range as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and the current Comprehensive Plan designation and, then, yes, the new DA, if you will, or the modified DA says that the applicant shall comply with the site plan elevations, open space, all of the things that you see in this plan is what's tied to the property if Council approves it the way it's being presented this evening. Again, you don't -- you are not an acting body on the DA modification, that's something -- the purview of the Council, but that staff's recommendation in the staff report that their strict adherence to the plan that you are seeing this evening, along with elevations and that density. So, yes, if changes were if this didn't move forward -- let's say they get approval through the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 16 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 14 of 45 Council and the DA gets executed and this is the plan on the books, yes, if they wanted to change it they are coming either before Council or this body, depending on what other applications they would be proposing. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Just want to make sure that was clear in everybody's mind. Additional thoughts? Comments? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just in looking at it and reading through the comments that are -- I mean Mr. Noriyuki's response for the public comments piece of it, I mean there is some -- some compare and contrast in here as far as, you know, putting in what's proposed versus putting in office space, essentially, and as far as the -- the number of trips each day and everything and it's very well thought out and it's very well presented, but I think in my mind the difference between them is going to be you're going to have everybody leaving at the same time, everybody coming back at the same time and what a retail office type space -- not necessarily a restaurant or something, you are going to have people that are going to be coming in and out during different parts of the day, not necessarily rush hour. I mean most people don't set their appointments up to be somewhere at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. So, I think that's an important distinction. The other thing -- and I mean we have talked about before is just the report that we got from the West Ada School District shows that every school that's -- every school that the children in this should go to is overcrowded and they won't go to it. They will be bused somewhere else. So, if it were my kid I wouldn't want them to be bused somewhere else. I want them to go to the school that's across the street and down the road, whatever that looks like. You know, the closer the better essentially. I mean that's because you want your kids to play with kids that they go to school -- school with, not come home to a -- you know, a subdivision of strangers essentially. So, I mean those are the two things that I'm looking at. The -- the other part is the ACHD report actually shows that -- I mean, essentially, those -- not only McMillan, but the streets there are -- I mean they are at capacity or more according to two plus year old data. So, that's -- you know. And I do drive by this area all the time, so that -- that portion of McMillan is horrible, to say the least. Anybody that's willing to take a bike out on that portion of McMillan is taking their life into their own hands for sure. So, you know, to try to put more people, more kids and everything into that is going to be -- I don't think it would be a very good use for it. And the other part that I want to bring up as far as the office space piece of it, people are going to be coming in and out of that, essentially, by Google or by direction, so I would imagine the offices in that area are going to instruct them to come in and out on McMillan. Now, whether or not they are going to go out Apgar and they are going to go all the way out to Linder, that's -- you know, nobody knows. I'm sure once people that would frequent those places of business figure that out, they are going to do the same thing that a lot of the residents are doing and that's -- they are going to go straight out to Linder and they are going to go out from there, just because you can't get onto McMillan from there in the mornings. It's probably nearly impossible Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 17 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 15 of 45 with the amount of people that they have going in and out. You know, those things considered, I'm -- I'm definitely looking at this for a denial. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm really torn with this, because I -- I really like the product and I love that they have come with 20 percent open space, plus additional parking, plus, plus, plus, plus. But I'm recalling our original denial on -- that really -- anything over the R-4 on this piece was just because of the traffic trying to get out of there on that corner and that it's already backed up. I think -- I think the office may be the better way to go on this. But I do -- I love the concept, I just -- I wish it was somewhere else just because of the already high density behind it, the issues that already exists there. Fitzgerald: Well, I would add my two cents. I love the product. I think there is a need for it in Meridian. I -- I think they did an exceptional job of laying this out. I don't think -- just for informational purposes, I don't think they are going to give us access onto McMillan. I think that's going to be emergency only forever. I don't think you are ever getting access to McMillan ever. So, whatever goes in there is going to have to use Selway Rapids or whatever they are going to -- because they can't curb cut on that island way on Goddard Creek. So, this is going to be a layout of -- something is going to go onto that Selway Creek line. So, that's just something -- food for thought everybody. I -- this piece of property we have struggled with for a long time. I think the DA's history is pretty extensive on -- I -- if I remember correctly -- and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong -- but there was a component of how much high density was supposed to be on the PUD and it was partially taken down, but not the whole thing, but I don't recall how much of it. So, that was something that came up and I remember having a conversation about it at our last meeting. I think we have seen this thing three times. So, I think this is the best rendition I have seen of it, but it's still back to the residential piece and if it fits there. So, I'm struggling, because I do know that there is a need for this product in the city, but if this is the right spot or not I don't know. But there is -- I'm struggling. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The other thought that just ran through my head is if this was something else other than -- I know -- I can see where there is plenty of parking within this little corridor for what's there, but we already have excessive overflow and people looking -- Fitzgerald: To replace the park. McCarvel: -- at parking and if it was a regular street or office or something there might be an opportunity for some of that overflow parking that's already congesting Goddard Creek to be -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 18 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 16 of 45 Fitzgerald: Oh, sure. Let's blame the parking on somebody else's problems. Cassinelli: I think we have learned since then. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Well, we are definitely getting better at it. Cassinelli: Hopefully. Seal: And Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I also -- I would like to -- I mean I didn't say anything about the positives about this and that is that if you took this -- if you could cherry pick this and put it into a -- to a spot that's more appropriate I would be all over it. I mean I have -- myself I have kids that absolutely need this type of housing in Meridian. So, I mean, you know, I know people personally that would benefit from having this kind of -- this kind of product available to them and it is very well thought out and it's very well laid out. I have no issues with anything that they have done on that. It's just the, you know, the -- how appropriate is it for this specific area. That's what I struggle with. Fitzgerald: So, I'm understanding of the certainty of somewhat of the zoning and we have done this because of that several times. So, there is some thought there. And I understand the Goddard Creek neighborhood as they have had a young kid get killed on a bike not very long ago. So, that is very fresh and we need to take that into account. So -- so, that's thoughts, additional -- do you have -- I can't do motions, because I'm -- McCarvel: Yeah. I would be happy to move forward with a motion if -- Fitzgerald: Any other comments from other commissioners before Commissioner McCarvel -- Cassinelli: I just -- just kind of a general comment. We -- we talk about these in-fill projects all the time and they are tough and I know there was -- there was one up on Linder across from the fire station there on the backside of Paramount that the first go around I remember we denied it and it was -- it was multi-family and they came back with a product that the neighbors were happy with, it fit, it worked, it's going in right now. It's -- it's developing. There is a Montessori school and there is some other things in there. So, I -- you know, not just office -- it doesn't just have to be, you know, like a dentist office or CPA office or something, but there -- there -- there is a need for a lot of those types of things that aren't your standard, you know, Walgreens on the corner, you know, fast food or something like that, there is -- there is -- there are definitely other -- I think other needs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 19 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 17 of 45 in -- in Meridian that could fit in that spot. I think this would -- and I don't know what the -- you know, what the zoning is down at -- at the corner and I think a Jackson's or Fast Eddy's built in another spot down there on that -- on that corner, what's going in, but this -- that's a lot of land down there, too. This is a project that I think could -- will be wonderful for something like that. So, those are just some thoughts there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, were you going to take a stab? McCarvel: Sure. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2019-0068 as presented during the hearing of November 7th, 2019, for the following reasons: That it should remain as suggested with the office or R-4 because of traffic concerns. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of H-2019-0068 for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Same -- motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. ( H- 2019-0098) by Scott Lamm, Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2. 29 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district Fitzgerald: Bill, do you want to move on to H-2019-0098, 840 East Ustick Road, and -- Mr. Parsons, I will let you take over, sir. Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is 840 East Ustick Road. This is an annexation and zoning request. The site consists of 2.29 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and, again, it's located at 840 East Ustick Road and that's midway between Meridian and Locust Grove on the north side of Ustick Road. The property is surrounded by single family residential zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county, but they -- there is one property just on the west boundary that is currently -- it's not showing up in this map, but it was recently annexed in as part of the 750 East Ustick property. So, there is an R-4 property right adjacent to this piece that was approved last year with a development agreement. The site is currently developed with an existing home. With the widening of that road project back in -- a few years ago the well for this property was wiped out with that project and so as part of that roadway project the previous owner entered into an agreement with the city to -- that allowed them to hook up to city services outside of our boundary and they would -- once they were contiguous they would annex in. So, that's really what they are doing tonight. It's just there is no development proposed, so staff is not recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation request, but we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 20 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 18 of 45 are recommending, rather than annexing the property in with the R-4 zoning district, we are recommending that they come in with the R-2 zone, which is also consistent with the low -- low density residential designation. Really, the primary differences between the two zoning districts is, one, R-4 are smaller lots with less street frontage. So, you are looking at 60 feet of street frontage and an 8,000 square foot lot in the R-4 zone. In the R-2 zone you need 80 feet of street frontage and a minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. We did run this idea past the applicant and they are amenable to staff's recommended change and having this come in with an R-2 zoning designation without entering into a development agreement. Now, if the -- this body wants the app -- or wants staff to enter into a DA, certainly, that's within your purview. If you are inclined to do that and support the R-4 zone, then, we would ask you to continue this out and allow time -- staff some time to craft those -- those DA provisions and bring those back to you for your consideration. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. The applicant, again, is in agreement with the R-2 zone in lieu of the R-4 zone. We are recommending approval with the comments in the staff report. We don't condition annexations. They are -- unless we do that through a development agreement and, again, we are not recommending that. So, I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Because I just want to be here all night. Fitzgerald: Do that. Nowhere to go. Cassinelli: Bill, with the -- assuming the new Comprehensive Plan is -- is adopted coming up next month, is that going to allow residential step-ups? Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is not. That -- that provision of the Comprehensive Plan will be removed as part of the update. Cassinelli: Okay. That's what I thought. So, basically, the way this is -- the way this one's looking at now, I mean if we -- if we -- if it's approved as R-2 it's -- it's staying R-2. Parsons: If it comes in as R-2 and they want to subdivide it, they can do that as long as they comply with the R-2 zoning districts. If they want to do an R-4 zone in the future, then, whatever they do would have to comply with the R-4 standards and be -- provide densities of three or less units to the acre consistent with the LDR designation. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff? Parsons: Or amend the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 21 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 19 of 45 Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's -- I had the exact same -- when we were talking earlier, because I had the same -- the potential for that area to redevelop is pretty high and the R-4 has been brought in the next door. So, something to think about as we go forward. But any other questions for staff? No? Would the applicant like to come forward? Probably just come say hi. And, then, you can agree with staff on -- on the record, so -- just state your name and your address for the record, sir. Lamm: Scott Lamm. 1217 East Lone Creek Drive, Eagle. Bill and the staff have been great to work with. We have no plans to develop the property. We have just been renovating the old farmhouse that's there and that's all we are doing. Fitzgerald: Okay. And, Mr. Lamm, do you have a preference on R-2 or R-4 if you are going to ever do a redevelopment or -- Lamm: No. We don't plan on redeveloping. The staff was kind enough to reach out and ask my opinion on that -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Lamm: -- and pretty much I don't really care. I mean I -- if I'm going to have to pay a development -- for a development agreement anyway, I would prefer the R-4 -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Lamm: -- but, if not, I'm all for saving the 300 bucks. Fitzgerald: Understood. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Lamm, thank you very much. Lamm: Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Fitzgerald: And we appreciate -- and we greatly appreciate it. Madam Clerk, is there anyone to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, if my technology serves me properly, there is nobody signed up for this application. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Mr. Lamm, do you need to say anything additional? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2919-0098. McCarvel: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 22 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 20 of 45 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Shall I just move to make a motion? Fitzgerald: I think you should. McCarvel: That would be good. Cassinelli: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0098 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second and a third to approve -- or to recommend approval of file number H-2019-0098. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Lamm. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H- 2019- 0111) by dbURBAN Communities, Generally Located on the West Side Of N. Eagle Rd., North of E. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I-L to the C- G zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our next item on the agenda, which is the Waterwalk application, H-2019-0111, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the Waterwalk rezone. The site consist of 5.18 acres of land, currently zoned I-L in the city and it's located on the west side of North Eagle Road and the east side of North Olson Avenue just north of East Franklin Road. To the north and west there is industrial property, zoned I-L. South is vacant, undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-G and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 23 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 21 of 45 to the east you have Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and retail, R.C. Willey store, zoned C-G. This property was annexed in 1997 with a requirement of a DA. However, a DA was never executed with the annexation. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial and the requested C-G zone is consistent with that designation. The property is currently vacant at this time. The applicant did provide a conceptual development plan for this particular property that shows two Extended Stay hotels on the site. If you read through the staff report you had noted that there is some deficiencies on the site plan regarding fire department access and, then, the amount of parking that's required by code. So, staff's recommendation is that we not tie this development agreement to the development agreement at this time, just because the applicant could work through staff on some of those challenges as they go through the CZC and design review process. Would also mention to you -- because of the -- the component of this type of use we also want to be -- I want to say hesitant as to what other complimentary uses could go with this restaurant -- or this hotel site. Certainly with this type of use you could get retail, office, maybe a restaurant to be a good partner with this use. So, through the development agreement process -- or through the provisions that we are proposing we have limited the use of the site to those four specific uses and if the applicant wanted to do anything other than those uses on the site, they would have to come back, modify that DA with the Council and bring forth a new concept plan to show how this could develop with other uses than what we are contemplating currently. Right now we are -- we have limited to -- and I will read Sonya's notes here. So, we are limited to office, hotel, retail and restaurant uses is currently how we are proposing it in the DA modification -- or the new DA. The applicant was informed of that information and they were in agreement with the staff report. So, again, staff is not holding the applicant to these -- to this concept plan, but we are supportive of the rezone to allow this use to occur on the property. We find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we ask for your approval tonight and I would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald; Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? None? Would the applicant like to come forward? Sir, thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record. Holt: Dustin Holt. 211 East Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. And if I call you Madam Chair it's because I prepared my comments on Monday, so -- Fitzgerald: That works. Holt: Congratulations to Commissioner Perreault. But I apologize if I call you Madam Chair. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much for your time this evening. In my role in -- at dbURBAN, Dusty Baker Communities, I am before bodies like yours at least monthly and a lot of times several times a month, so even though I'm not here from Meridian, thank you for your service. I think I have a glimpse of what it -- what it entails to do what you do. So, thank you very much. I also wanted to publicly thank Sonya. Sonya, the planner, couldn't be here tonight. I met Bill at my first visit. I have been working with Sonya on this for close to a year now. So, we did want to make certain that we got certain things right and I appreciate her time. I do not want you to hold us to this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 24 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 22 of 45 site plan. There are things that we need to work through. I was on the phone with Waterwalk as recently as yesterday on their prototype and their prototype may go to one building. So, I know there are things that we are going to work through and I will mention a couple other things, but I just wanted to -- wanted to thank Sonya publicly. I also want to thank Brad Miller, who is here, and the Van Auker family. They have been wonderful to work with. And now Brad with the older -- Adler Industries and the property and their continued support. So, we are -- we are not only acquiring this five acres, we are acquiring the two acres south of this that fronts onto Franklin. So, that's another reason in our conversations with Sonya of delaying the DA is we would like to work through a Comprehensive Site plan with some of the uses that Bill mentioned in conjunction with the hotel. So, the application request for you tonight is a rezone. It's a rezone to know with certainty that those four uses specifically that Bill mentioned would work, that we can work through access, we can work through parking, we can work through those uses really comprehensively on this seven plus acre site. As Bill mentioned, the general plan calls for this area to be commercial, so we think it's something that complies with that request. We have read the staff report. I think the only other comment that I would make -- we are in full support of the staff report and appreciate what Sonya has done. The only other comment is as we -- as we come back and work through this we are hopeful that at a minimum we might be able to explore a right-in, right-out onto Franklin. We know we will never get a full intersection. We know that our main ingress-egress will be off Olson. We know we will never do anything on Eagle, but certainly exploring at least a right-in, right-out just for circulation pattern and flow is something that we would like to do. So, we wanted to note that on the record. We -- we clearly understand the next steps would be to finalize that site plan and, then, work through a DA and -- and have that document recorded. So, if there is -- if there is any questions I'm happy to answer them. If not, we appreciate your time this evening and would respectfully request the forwarding of a positive recommendation. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. So, there is some significant topography on that piece of property, at least to the nor -- or your south and is there -- are you thinking you are going to combine this into one project eventually or two different separate site plans? Holt: No. I think it would -- will ultimately always be two different site plans, two different parcels, because of topography, but certainly thinking through really any connection as far as cross-access from this site to something to the south really needs to happen to the west and they are close to Olson where the topography is shallower. So, thinking through that, Matt Munger of WHP is here and they have been wonderful to work with. I should also thank him. But -- but thinking through all of that is something that -- that we want to do as a whole. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holt: Holistically. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 25 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 23 of 45 Fitzgerald: That works. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for this application, ma'am? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show Brad Miller. Fitzgerald: Mr. Miller, do you want to testify? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here that would like to testify in this application? Seeing none, any other questions for staff before we move to close the public hearing? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Or would you like to say anything additional, sir? Okay. Jumping the gun. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing on Item 4-C Waterwalk, H-2019-0111. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0111. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: I -- I think it fits it, it -- I mean if we are -- all we are doing is -- is the rezone I'm all for it. Fitzgerald: I -- I'm in agreement. I think there is time -- it's time for that corner to be something different and it's been kind of an interesting and a different group of parcels there for a long time and I think Brad's work in past to the north has been great. This would be a good thing to clean up for the city I think. So, I'm in support. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I -- this is no longer an industrial corner. Changing it to C-G makes perfect sense. A hotel on that corner I think is fabulous. As long as they are in agreement, which they seem to be, with everything in the staff report, I don't see a problem with this. Fitzgerald: And they realize they are not getting access to Eagle Road, which is always an easy thing. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Basically the same comments. It's nice to actually see a conceptual plan be provided as part of this and to understand how the southern piece of property is going to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 26 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 24 of 45 tie into there. So, just seeing what may conceptually go into there is -- it's actually a nice piece to go in there. With that, I will -- I can make a motion on this one. Fitzgerald: A motion is always in order. Seal: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0111 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of H-2019-0111, the Waterwalk rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) by Schultz Development, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd. and South of E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: To de -annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R- 4 for the purpose of combining the property with the adjacent County RUT parcel to the south; and 2. Request: A Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R- 4 zoning district to the R- 8 zoning district; and 3. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 113 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28. 51 acres in the proposed R- 8 zoning district; and 4. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested Preliminary Plat. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on down the agenda. Next we will open the public hearing on application H-2019-0097, the Percy Subdivision, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, next item is Percy Subdivision. There is a slew of concurrent applications with this, one of which we have never done before, which is de-annexation of a -- a sliver of property and I will -- as I get into my presentation I will elaborate a little bit more as to why we are -- we are de-annexing that piece of property. So, we are looking at a de-annexation, a rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zone to the R-8 zone and, then, a preliminary plat consisting of 113 single family Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 27 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 25 of 45 building lots and 11 common lots and 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zone and, then, also a development agreement modification to tie the applicant to the proposed development plan that he is showing -- that we are discussing this evening. So, this property -- history on this property. It was annexed in 2015 as part of the South Meridian annexation. At that time the applicant was granted R-4 zoning with a development agreement. As part of that development agreement the applicant was granted permission to proceed with a rezone of this property and a DA modification at no cost to them in anticipation of this -- potentially redeveloping other than R-4. That was, again, contemplated in that DA and that's why the applicant's pursuing the R-8 zone this evening, because that was the intent behind the recorded development agreement. So, the reason why -- but also as part of that -- so, again, the city recognized that it would redevelop, come in with a subdivision consistent with the medium density and low density designation on this particular property. If you had a chance to read my staff report, there was comments in there that this property does have dual designations on it. It has low density -- or it's primarily low density. There is medium density along the north boundary and, then, predominately it's low density residential over the majority of it. As this body knows, the Comprehensive Plan and those land use designations aren't parcel specific and so looking at the proposed density for this project, which is slightly above the low density standards it's at 3.96 dwelling units to the acre and because there is a medium designation on this property, along with the low density residential designation, staff didn't feel it was appropriate for the applicant to request a step-up and we find that the density that's proposed this evening is consistent with the dual designation on this particular property. Now, the purpose for the de-annexation of the property is to facilitate the roadway -- the access to Meridian Road. The city, ITD and ACHD, we all work together on a master street map and we have policies that restrict access to Meridian Road, because of the mobility and nature of it and the high high volumes of traffic. In this particular case ITD was adamant that this roadway connect at the mid mile between Amity and Lake Hazel and that the only way that could happen is that the developer could work with the adjacent neighbor to the south and, then, that neighbor that is also farther to the south in order to execute the necessary easements to dedicate to ACHD in order to construct an offsite portion of that roadway and if you can see my cursor here, that's -- really, this is the -- the frontage that we are talking about. So, this is the off-site portion to get the connection to Meridian Road, thereby along the north boundary of this property the applicant will have to go through the county. Once they get to the de-annexation process with the city, go to the county and re-establish a zone for this particular property. So, the county has a rezone process as well to reassign it the RUT designation, so that this property owner can do a property boundary adjustment and, then, consolidate this sliver in with his property to make him whole and keep him consistent with the RUT zoning in the county. The applicant shared an e-mail with me today. He's already conducted a pre-application with the county, so he is aware of what the requirements are going forward with reverting that back to Ada county zoning. Now, the rezone -- the exhibit on the right- hand side is the boundary of the rezone, which, again, is 28 -- approximately 29 acres and, again, it's currently zoned R-4 and the applicant is proposing R-8 zoning. So, here is the -- again, the preliminary a plat and the landscape plan before you. And, again, the plat consist of 113 single family detached lots. The applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases. As of today if you had a chance -- again in the staff report staff was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 28 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 26 of 45 concerned with the phasing plan that the applicant submitted with the application. Today the applicant did provide staff with a revised phasing plan and layout for your consideration this evening. The notable change as you can see here is that we are going to get the Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first -- entire Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first phase and, then, the applicant also has been working with the developer on the east boundary to provide utility connections and a stub street and so rather than having two stub streets on the east boundary, the applicants -- in conjunction with Brighton Corporation on their east boundary, is proposing only one stub street and, then, common driveways along the north and south boundary to provide those accesses. The plat that's proposed to you this evening is a little bit -- it does exceed the open space standards of the UDC at 12.36 percent open space. In my staff report we -- staff was concerned that the primary open space was predominantly located along Meridian Road and the collector street, which is East Quartz Creek Drive along -- excuse me -- East Quartz Creek Street along the south boundary and so we wanted to have a little bit more open space that was central to the development, so that we weren't having people recreate along the -- the major roadways for these developments. Originally staff's recommendation was the applicant to lose these two adjacent lots, which was Lots 7 and -- Lot 6 and Lot 7 and combine those into a Lot 5. Again, the applicant is conceding to losing -- while providing a larger open space really orienting it more so that you can see it from all three sides of the street and, then, that facilitates a bigger open space, but it also has greater visibility on there. So, staff is amenable to the changes that the applicant's proposing to the revised phasing plan and the layout that's before you this evening and you can also see in that exhibit the connection of that collector street to Meridian Road along the south boundary, both the portion that he is expected to construct and the offsite portion. In the DA we have required the applicant to construct the entire boundary -- or construct the entire length to that collector street with the first phase. Here is the open space exhibit as I mentioned. The amenities proposed for the development consistent of a tot lot, a gazebo, and, then, Meridian Road requires a ten foot multi-use pathway within the 35 foot landscape buffer along that roadway and the applicant, again, is going to construct that in its entirety with the first phase. The other unique thing about this proposed development is the applicant is also providing a variety of a lot of sizes within the development to provide housing diversity and that's also the reason why staff is supportive of the request to the R-8 zone and here are the sample uses -- or examples of the proposed elevations in the development. You can see there are varying sizes, various architecture throughout the development. So, there will be quite a diverse housing mix within the proposed development, even though they are all front loaded garages. It's single family detached homes. Staff did receive written testimony from Matt Schultz in agreement with most of the conditions of approval. I think with the exhibit that I showed you this evening a lot of staff's conditions have been addressed. So, as you can see with the revised phasing plan, the State Highway 69 improvements, that buffer along that roadway with the berm, the fencing, the landscaping and the ten foot multi-use pathway will all be constructed with phase one as recommended by staff. The applicant did reorient that open space, as I mentioned to you in my presentation, which is the exhibit on the right. Staff is amenable to that change. And, then, we are recommending -- one other thing that I brought up in the staff report was the need for a sidewalk to be extended along the collector road along the offsite portion of the site. So, the UDC requires the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 29 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 27 of 45 applicant to do detached sidewalk on -- on the portion of the collector road that he is required to construct as part of the development, but for the offsite portion ACHD is only requiring a 30 foot wide street segment with three feet of gravel on each side and, then, the borrow ditches for drainage. So, we certainly want the app -- we want -- we understand that these kids are going to go to Meridian School District. We want to make sure that where ever that bus stop location is is in a safe location for kids to get to that school bus stop. So, it's been my experience that the -- the school buses actually stop on Meridian Road and pick kids up at intersections of roadways, rather than driving into the subdivisions. So, staff was very concerned with how that would play out and so we have actually asked the applicant to go speak with the school district and see -- try to determine where the school bus stop will be for this particular development. If it is located at the intersection of the collector street at the mid mile, then, we certainly want the applicant to construct that five foot sidewalk along the entire boundary of that collector street to get the students to the intersection -- safely to that intersection, rather than having them walk on just the paved roadway. So, that is a recommended condition in the DA and the staff report and I think that's the one that the applicant will -- will work with the school district. He is amenable to it, but, again, I left it flexible in the staff report that if the school district -- if that's where it's anticipated, do it. If it isn't it doesn't apply, they don't need to comply with that. No sidewalk is required. And, then, I would also mention to the Commission that currently both our Fire Department, Police Department and ITD are restricting the access out of this development to a right-in, right-out, left-in only until such time as ITD can complete their corridor study of State Highway 69. So, the state wants to study that to understand the access management for that highway and see -- determine what the future right of way needs are going to be for that roadway. So, right now we have a pretty specific in the staff report that has restricted that use, but I think we should probably modify that condition this evening and give the applicant some flexibility that if it's just a signalized intersection in the future that it could be allowed to be a right -- full access at some point in time. So, in your motion this evening I would just ask that you include that as one of your motions, that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only until such time is ITD determines that it can be a full access and a signalized intersection. With that the only written testimony that I received was from Matt Schultz, the applicant, again, in agreement with the conditions of the staff report, with the modifications that I stated and I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? Or at least at this time. No? Mr. Schultz, would you like to come forward, sir. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 821 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of MWT, LLC. They are the contract purchaser of the Percy Farms property, which Bill said was annexed as part of the mass annexation of -- I believe 40 properties four years ago and it was brought to our attention that Mr. Percy might want to develop it. Our first inclination was, man, it's close to the highway, you know, it gives you a little bit of pause, right? It's close, which is good, and it's close, which is bad sometimes, because the noise and the traffic and ITD is kind of tough to work through that sometimes and so we prefer not to be right on the highway, but after looking at it we love south Meridian, we think it's -- it's a great piece of property if done right and if done well and if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 30 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 28 of 45 mitigated well with the proper buffers and access and all those things, which -- which we -- we believe we have addressed. We do agree with the staff report. We have since the staff report came out, updated the phasing plan, reworked that central area to open up into the three sides and make it a few thousand square feet bigger. It's a half -- it's a 20,000 square feet. It's -- it's big. It's ample. It's not as big as our entry feature, which -- which we do need to preserve not only for a nice, passive open space, but we have an irrigation pond we need to do there, an irrigation holding pond that will have a little fountain in it. You are only allowed to do 25 percent of that area with the pond, the rest has to be open. So, we really want to preserve that size. W e think it's nice to have that size. It's more of a passive area, not a go out and you can throw a frisbee or whatever out there. But that's -- the kids are more likely to be around the playground in the middle, which is centrally located, connected with micro paths. It actually works out pretty well, the geometry of the site in that regard. We have done some other smaller R-4 projects over the last few years in Meridian, 15 lots, 20 lots, with a mix of builders, so a good variety. We want to apply that here. We didn't say, hey, we want an R-8, because we want to do all 4,000 square foot lots. Not that there is anything wrong with 4,000 square foot lots, because there is not, but in this location at this spot we thought we needed to do some transitional larger lots on the east and on the south and, then, some medium sized -- almost R-4, but not quite. In the middle. You know, some six to seven, almost eight thousand square foot. It meets the R-4 width, just not the best, but they are still ample, and, then, the transition is nice -- I'm just going to plainly state two car garage, but single story. A lot of people want it right now. It's still very nice, very expensive in south Meridian. But we wanted a mix of that two car or three car, 50, 60, 70. We are not going for high density here. It's a -- it's a low density R-8, you know at -- at that four. It's -- we thought it was appropriate, whether we had to ask for a step up or not, which we still can, but even in your new comp plan that you guys approved recently I hear, you have said that this would be medium density. You have recommended that to Council. Whether you did or not, we still -- we think it's appropriate, like Bill said, to slide that -- that boundary down to that mid mile. We think that's the good -- that's the good break point between the medium and the low. We are -- like I said, we are a low density medium at that four to the acre. But the bigger -- the issues on here are access, which has been difficult. We have got great neighbors to work with, it's just -- there is a certain way things need to go to accomplish access easements, like Bill said, and that's why we have -- the first time ever done a de-annexation strip. It's essentially adjusting our boundary four years ago that was annexed and say, yeah, we should have done that about 20 feet narrower and everything would have been good, because in exchange for granting that access easement its use would like to retain an extra 20 feet. So, there is a process for doing that. We are doing it. It's a little cumbersome, but we are getting through it. We don't -- we think it's a minor modification, it doesn't adversely impact what the city wants to do and what we want to do long term. Just right now he would like to stay in the county, RUT, until which time in the future sometime long term, medium term, we don't know yet, but right now everything in the short term he's not interested in -- in -- in rezoning this whole property and developing. So, in the meantime there is an offsite access road that we are building to, essentially, standards, which is a 30 foot wide pavement. Half on each property owner right at the mid mile, with a seven foot borrow ditch for drainage, at which time that the adjacent property is developed they would do the full curb, gutter, sidewalk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 31 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 29 of 45 and -- and widen that out. The only thing we disagree with -- with Bill -- but he did give me some wiggle room with the school district -- was the requirement for the offsite sidewalk. I don't think they are going to require it -- that they are going to pick up people right at that Meridian Road intersection, short or long term. I think this is a mid-mile collector, they are going to come inside somewhere. If our kids do need to get up to Meridian Road they can -- we have a pathway connection out there just north of the intersection going out there. I mean there is ways to get it out there without going on that frontage and we just were constrained on our width of what we can do along that mid mile and so we will check with the school district, but I'm 99 percent sure they are not going to want to stop right there on Meridian Road and pick up kids. I'm thinking they would rather come in, do the loop, pick them up and just to the east of us I know Brighton is getting ready to submit a very large application that will continue that mid mile all the way over to Locust Grove and there will be a mid-mile connection out to Lake Hazel another quarter mile past us. So, there will be a grid -- a mid-mile grid, a collector road, through -- through that section. We are doing our share of it and we are the first ones in, so we get to pioneer some of these access issues and utility issues of bringing water from a quarter mile away down Meridian Road. The sewer is already through the site. It was put in in conjunction with that mass annexation. The portion of infrastructure to serve all those properties was installed, including through that east-west road on our north boundary there is sewer all the way through that and it actually goes under Meridian Road to -- to the west. So, it's -- it's eminently developable. It's the right time to do this. We think we have the right plan. We are not asking for high density R-8, we are asking for low density to get some flexibility. So, we still have some R-4 lots underneath that zoning, but it gives us some flexibility in our -- in our depths and widths to -- to have a mix in that and we thought that was important to get some good energy out there. So, to illustrate kind of the sizing, I think our average lot size is -- it is 7,200 square feet. That's our average. Our minimum of 5,200 square feet, where 4,000 is allowed in an R-8 and as far as the distribution of those lots, we only have 19 percent between five and six thousand. We have 81 percent over six. We have 53 percent over seven and 24 percent are over 8,000 square feet -- you know, over those times. So, it's -- it's skewed to the -- to the -- to the bigger lots within that -- in that regard. Bill did point out that we did -- Brighton called me after we had submitted this, say, hey, can we work with our stub streets on our east boundary. I said, sure, just don't slow me down. But we are working -- so, it's a real -- we see this very -- a revision, those two stub streets get converted to the common driveways and, then, we just add a stub street where it works better for their geometry and ACHD has approved the single -- the single stub in their staff report, because I brought it to their attention as they read the staff report. So, they have -- they have put that in there that they would -- they would accept one, even though our official preliminary plat doesn't show it right now. We would like that to be a condition of the final platting as we have it. But we think it's the right place in the right time. A beautiful -- a beautiful wall, a berm. We have actually doubled the -- almost doubled the required trees and shrubs from your minimums on that buffer. We made sure our landscape architect, after Bill pointed out, hey, you might want to do something else and, again, we looked at that. We don't want to go minimums. We want to do more. So, I kind of instructed our landscape architect to go back and -- and bump that up. We actually have 35 feet -- we have a ten foot -- we have a 35 foot landscape buffer. There is a ten foot sidewalk in that to the right of way and, then, we are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 32 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 30 of 45 also going to do ten feet of landscaping within the right of way. So, we actually have a 45 foot landscape buffer where 35 is required. So, we want to do something nice on the entryway corridor coming in from the south. I mean we won't be the last -- the first one in over time, but we are now. You know, we will be the next -- first one in coming from the south. So, we want to do something that everybody can be proud of and say, yeah, it looks nice. It's been in the -- the fence along there won't be your standard, you know, vinyl -- vinyl, but it's -- you know, 20 dollars a square -- 20 dollars a foot standard, it's going to be Redtail and Caven -- Caven's building right now. The Redtail is already done and it's more of a stamp composite, the concrete pillars, it's more of a composite look to it that's, you know, probably three times as much cost that does deafen the sound, that the berm being up as well will -- will be a sound barrier and -- and, then, staff -- or your code requires a ten foot total, four foot berm, six foot fence wall. We are going to recreate that, even though it falls off right now as it comes up the hill there, we are going to lift all that up and so it will be a consistent berm all the way along there that you will see, instead of looking down on that field. So, it's going to -- it's going to change the look and feel of that for the positive I think. So, hopefully, you -- you concur with staff's recommendation for approval. I know we do. And I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Matt, could you tell us what the -- the tot lot on -- is that the area in the middle? Schultz: In the middle. Uh-huh. McCarvel: And, then, what goes on that back northeast corner? Schultz: Yes. Chair and Commissioner McCarvel, it's really elevated -- the highway is really elevated up. There is probably 12 to 14 feet above the site. That is a secondary emergency access -- McCarvel: No. No. No. The east, not west. Within the subdivision. Schultz: There is drainage and open space. Excuse me. McCarvel: So, drainage and -- Schultz: Yeah. It's open space. There is nothing -- there is no -- there is no amenity in that one. There is a central amenity of a playground and we have a gazebo in the front. I probably want to move it from the other side of the pond in the final iteration, but it's in that front area and this is kind of central -- it will be underground seepage. It won't be a pond. It will -- it will be flat with -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 33 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 31 of 45 McCarvel: And I guess I like the passive open space on the entry to the -- you know, I'm just saying -- I mean being along the busy road is -- I mean something more amenity wise within there I guess -- since there is nothing marked -- Schultz: On the -- on the front -- on the mid mile on the south on that big one as you come in -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I like that. I like the more water and that passive area up there, but I'm thinking within it it would be nice to have something more than just -- so, I was just curious what the plan was there. But it is just green space. Schultz: Yes. Chairman and Commissioner, we -- as we do our preliminary layouts we know that the ground slopes all down to that way and we are going to run a reserve -- ample area. ACHD requires really large facilities for drainage, you know, and sometimes people do ponds and depressed retention ponds, sometimes they do beds. We have some subsurface conditions, fortunately, but I prefer if it can be out of sight, out of mind, it's -- it's grass, it's open space, you can walk your dog, you can play catch, but they don't allow you to plant your trees in the middle of it where that facility is underground. You can put shrubs on the outside and trees on the outside and center is grass and they like to keep it that way just for -- in case they have to go in and deal with it later if it ever clogs up in 20 years or something. But it's a big underground gravel drainage bed, but covered with landscaping is what it is. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Does it look like I was going to ask -- Fitzgerald: You were going for your mic. Cassinelli: And this might -- might be for Bill, too. What are the minimum number of amenities? Is it just two? Parsons: Yeah. Commissioners, yeah, the minimum is for five acres you do one and, then, an additional 20 acres out of that another. So, as I said we -- code only requires -- and Matt's doing three at this point. So, he is in excess of both open space and -- and amenities at this point. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Matt, thank you for -- we will see if there is public testimony and we will bring it back up if there is additional questions. We appreciate it. Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One person signed up. A Ron Galloway. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 34 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 32 of 45 Fitzgerald: Mr. Galloway, don't need to testify? Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and your address for the record, please, sir. Reiterman: Carl Reiterman. I live at 2697 South Linder Road. I own the property directly north of this and my question or concern is the little stub street that comes up on the north side will that have sewer and water in it, because right now my property has no sewer and water connected to it. It's also in the county, which we were not annexed -- I don't understand why we weren't, but we weren't. Fitzgerald: And usually when we are running stub streets we are stubbing other things, so I will let the applicant respond to that. Or, Bill, if you want to talk about that or we can have him respond when he comes back up, sir. Reiterman: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience want to testify on this application? Matt, do you want to come back up and close your thoughts and answer this gentleman's question if you can. Schultz: Yeah. Matt Schultz. Thanks. Thanks for the neighbor for showing up to the north. We have wondered what his intents were, but he is -- and it has been tried to be sold for mini storage -- potentially it's zoned. I think BC in the county -- but definitely all these stub streets have utilities in them. Sewer is really close to his property. It's about 120 feet away in our road, so we will provide a stub from the existing one to his boundary. It slopes down and it will work great. Water and sewer and there may be potential in the future on the irrigation, depending on how that develops, but it's pretty standard for us. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Kind of follow up to Commissioner McCarvel's. The -- I guess that's the southeast corner where you got the emergency access going out, did you look at -- and you were kind of describing some of the slopeage in there. But is it possible to maybe -- and maybe put another -- get another lot in there or something -- move some of that -- move some of the -- more green space internal. Schultz: Chairman and Commissioner Cassinelli, we -- we left that like that, because as that road comes down -- I think it's a 20 foot wide fire access that can double as a pedestrian, but it will be going at about a maximum ten percent, but there will side slopes coming down off of it, so we wanted to leave that area bigger to have sloped grass, to not be too patched in that area. So, we looked at the topography in the third dimension on this, which was -- which is not apparent, you know, just looking at this it is not, we felt that that was the right space to leave for that. We didn't really put it there for open space per se, we put it there for that access road and -- and left it ample for the grades and everything else and, then, at that entryway we -- that's kind of what was left over. We liked it big as -- not only as a passive area open space, but just as a -- as a big open field Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 35 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 33 of 45 as you drive in, just as an entry feature per se, you know, as you drive in and make it look bigger with some R-4 lots backing up to it and in the central area I think by reorienting it like we did it is really going to open it up. It did increase some, you know, a couple thousand square feet, which isn't huge, but it really makes -- it's going to make it feel so much more open having it open on three sides and we just made that change here recently. We thought that was a good idea. So, as far as adding more open space and losing lots -- trading lots would be cool, you know, I mean that's okay, if we could -- we thought we had an area to do it. We are just not seeing a place to trade lots, other than that -- that front area and we actually went through that iteration of maybe losing two lots in the middle and maybe gaining two lots on the front, but still having some for the pond and two issues pop up. Because the lots are so deep it's inefficient -- we actually lose -- it's a net loss of open space, even though your -- it's an even lot swap, it's a net loss of open space and, two, we are kind of pinched on the -- which I didn't even know until -- until it was pointed out to me that ponds can only be 25 percent of that area and so we are -- we are still going through the final engineering about the size that that pond needs to be and we feel like we -- we -- we like it for three different reasons with the front up in that area. So, we really think besides this extra area, which seems to be kind of unused, the drainage part, I think it's pretty well programmed for everything we need to do, especially with the micro paths connecting everything together, so -- that's my long explanation. I'm sorry. Fitzgerald: Additional -- Cassinelli: I guess on that -- that one -- the area where that access road is going out -- out to Meridian Road, it's -- it's because of the topography there? Schultz: The topography for sure. Yeah. It is. I mean it's probably 12 to 14 feet higher than the top is from the bottom and so the three to one side slope is going to come out about 30 feet more from the -- from the top of that road just to the bottom of it and so that will be a gentle slope that there is just no -- to get another lot in there it's problematic, because of the third dimension. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate it. Schultz: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0097. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 36 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 34 of 45 Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H- 2019-0097. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: It is properly before you, Commissioners. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Well, as far as -- kind of go down the checklist. I -- the density I think it's -- I'm -- I'm good with the density and -- and the way it transitions. Obviously, I think if you are trying to put, you know, R-4 lots up against Meridian Road they are just -- they are not going to -- probably not going to sell. I mean they might. There is --- there is areas where you can look at Eagle Road to -- you know, to the north down to Eagle against -- you know, you got some of the -- and along Chinden and whatnot, but I think for the most part that's a good -- good use of that, putting smaller -- smaller homes in there. So, I'm -- I'm great with that. When I looked at it I saw the issue of that corner, that that was -- that I addressed and I, you know, understand the topography. I would -- I guess, you know, if there was a way to get a little bit more internal green space I would like to see it, but I think they have probably done that and I was thinking -- my first thought was, you know, swap a lot into that corner, but it really can't be done. Perhaps like to see them look at some different amenities, other than the tot lot and the gazebo, something that maybe fit -- because these are -- I'm guessing these might be a little bit higher end homes. I'm not entirely sure, but something that would -- would fit that little -- a little bit better. Maybe a little bit more established community, so to speak. I think other than that it's a -- it fits as it -- as it goes for Meridian Road on the east to the west there with the lots getting larger and it sounds like if -- they have talked with Brighton and they are going to -- you know, those lots along the -- the western side are going to line up to their lots, so -- Fitzgerald: So, I -- I agree. I appreciate the applicant ensuring there is -- that they are working with their neighbors to the north and to the east. The gentleman is getting his -- the stub street to the sewer and water and going to the north and I know Brighton appreciates being able to oriental the road that makes sense for them. I'm okay with the micro paths and how that plays into the middle section and the green space there. I know Woodbridge had something similar to that when I lived there and it kind of fed everybody into that green space. It was a walkable area and, then, those -- that was a drain area -- it's underneath landscaping, so you have kids out there playing football and on that. So, I don't have a problem with that either. But I understand what you are talking about. Possibly mature components. But with the -- the smaller homes to -- on -- along Meridian Road, I don't mind having a tot lot there either. So, it's kind of a balancing act. I think they have done a good job with what they are working with topography wise as well. Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 37 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 35 of 45 McCarvel: Yeah. I mean the passive areas in the northwest and the southeast I like and I'm -- if -- just my two cents, if they can have more than 25 percent be that pond, I think it probably would be really pretty. Yeah. And the inner ones I was just wondering if there is any, you know, opportunity to do something on that other small little space in there, but I do like the reorientation of it. It just feels better. And of course -- I mean what this demonstrates going to the east over there to the future project, that's the way they have meld those together, that's -- I think that's fine. I think to the gentleman's point, I believe he asked why they weren't annexed. I think -- it's -- the City of Meridian just doesn't come annex you, you just need to request it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: So, yeah, I'm in favor. I agree, the density -- especially along Meridian Road I think this is a nice blend, especially now you got Schaffer Butte and another one coming on the other side I think is just fine. Fitzgerald: I like to mix of products with the different lot sizes, so -- Commissioner Seal. Seal: Chair. For clarification, Bill, on the open space. I mean with -- with the modifications they have made in the revision that they have submitted, is that -- does that comply with what staff wanted within the report. It doesn't -- as I'm reading back through it it doesn't seem like it, but I just want to make sure. So, if we throw a motion out there that we -- it seems like it's amenable, but I want to make sure that we have that in the -- in the motion. Parsons: Yeah. Thank you for that, Commissioner. I had some comments on how you should probably -- guide you in your motion this evening. Certainly with -- with the reduction of the stub street, in addition to the common driveways, we don't have conditions to address that. So, certainly what we have done -- and I don't want to hold up the applicant this evening either, there is no need to, but typically what we have done is -- is had them provide us a new -- a revised plan ten days prior to the City Council hearing and, then, that way we can prepare a memo for Council and have them incorporate some additional conditions that coincide with the changes to the plat. Certainly I'm open to that this evening. So, I would just include in your motion -- I think we should strike some conditions for sure. I was looking at those -- that staff report, so if -- again, if the Commission is open to the open space changes, certainly my recommendation was to lose two lots and have a bigger open space. Now, what he has done isn't commensurate to what I asked him to do, but I think having it open from three sides does make it at least more visible and more usable than the way it was before. So, I'm okay with -- with that change, so -- Seal: And he did -- yeah, he did take some of the space away from the other lots that were in there. So, he didn't -- Parsons: He even shrunk those lots a little bit, yeah, and that's something that he and I discussed. So, certainly, if you are open to that you can strike condition 2-A in the staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 38 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 36 of 45 report at site specific and 2-A under the preliminary plat and, then, under the landscape plan it's 3-A. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. One of the questions I think we need to -- or can you point out something -- and I can't remember which point it is on the -- the road section and the flexibility we are giving them to discuss options with the school district, which specific point -- is that -- I couldn't find it without looking back. Parsons: Well, currently the way the DA reads it says construct a five foot sidewalk along the entire length of East Quartz Creek Street and, then, it goes on to say if the school district doesn't require a stop along that roadway at that intersection, then, it won't be required -- required for the offsite portion of the roadway. But he still has to do it for the portion -- his on site -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Parsons: -- and so that's actually DA provision 2-C. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. And, then, we have the right-in, right-out -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald; -- discussion as well. Seal: I had a question on that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir. Seal: If you could just restate what you had stated previously. I wrote some notes, but now I'm looking at them going what did I mean. Parsons: Well, currently it's in the staff report under a preliminary plat condition -- actually, -- let's see here. 2-D. It specifies that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only and, then, comply with ITD mitigation measures as described in the -- in the traffic study. But I can see at some point when there is enough traffic and there is a -- this -- a warrant for a signal there, that at some point it would be open to a full access, because now we have a controlled signalized intersection. So, I think -- I think we can leave it until such time as the intersection is signalized or -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- determined meets IT -- or ITD completes its corridor study and deems that it can be -- it will be -- warrant a signal and be improved to a full access. But I think it's -- to me I would just leave it open until ITD completes the -- Fitzgerald: Corridor study. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 39 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 37 of 45 Parsons: -- corridor study. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- and they determine what the future needs are for that. McCarvel: So, did you say in the staff report it is already stated properly for -- to work with the school district or do we need to change that wording? Because I think we are all in agreement that -- that -- Parsons: Yeah. The way it's worded it says if -- if West -- West Ada School District doesn't -- does not require a school bus stop at the intersection of Meridian Road and East Quartz Creek Street, the five foot wide detached sidewalk is not required to be constructed along the offsite portion of the roadway. McCarvel: So, we -- Parsons: So, I have got it covered. McCarvel: So, we don't need to make any other comments -- Parsons: Leave it as is. If the applicant can get with Joe Yochum before City Council, we can take it up then. Fitzgerald: Got it. Perfect. Any additional questions for staff? Any additional comments? Somebody want to take a shot at where we are headed. Seal: I can try this one. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0097 as it's been presented by the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019, with the following modifications: That we strike conditions 2-A and 3-A and accept the revisions submitted by the applicant and we modify condition 2-B, that the right-in, right-out and left-only remains until ITD completes the corridor study. McCarvel: And authorizes a signal. Seal: And authorizes a signal. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 40 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 38 of 45 McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Any clarification needed? Parsons: Just one clarification. Just include in your motion that ten days prior to the City Council hearing they submit the revised plat and landscape plan consistent with the exhibit on the left-hand side of your screen. Or, excuse me, the right-hand side. McCarvel: Second including those comments. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. Does staff understand what the motion is or do we need to have it restated? We are good? Okay. Awesome. McCarvel: You got the 2-A and, then, landscape was the three -- the landscape 3-A and I -- got it. Cassinelli: Bill, did you -- was there one other one that -- you mentioned a 2-C. Was that -- McCarvel: That was the school -- Fitzgerald: That was already stated in there properly. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, I have a motion and a second to -- for approval of file H-2019-0097 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Schultz, appreciate it, sir. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Street Length for Cul-De-Sacs (H-2019-0107) by Todd Campbell 1. Request: To extend the maximum street length for cul-de- sacs listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 from 450 feet to 500 feet, or up to 750 feet with City Council approval. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on our agenda. We have -- we will move forward to open a public hearing on H-2019-0107, the street length for cul-de-sacs, UDC Text Amendment and Bill. Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on our agenda this evening is the UDC Text Amendment to modify our cul-de-sac length requirements of our subdivision standards in the UDC. This is not a staff initiated request. This actually came forward from a developer of a project for the Silver Springs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 41 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 39 of 45 development that you guys recently approved. There was an extended cul-de-sac length that did not meet current code, which was 400 feet. As he went through that hearing process and took those deliberation -- that application up with City Council, both applicants, staff, City Council kind of struggled with what we should do with it. You know, as you know, Council cannot waive code requirements and so, essentially, the applicant took it upon themselves to come forward with this amendment, understanding that it does affect all properties citywide and so the applicant, as part of their application submittal they were given homework. We asked them to actually go out and look at all the other jurisdictions in our surrounding area to see what they approve and, like anything, every code varies anywhere you go and I just want to give Caleb some kudos, too, because he's the one that really ran with this and he looked -- even took either a broader cast -- cast it a broader net and looked nationwide for what other cities were doing and that's why you kind of see staff's recommend changes before you on this exhibit. So, originally the applicant was proposing 500 feet and, then, allow some flexibility for City Council to approve up to 750 feet and, really, that 750 feet came down to -- that's what ACHD policies allow, up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac and also our fire department or their fire code allows up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac. Well, we as staff, before we agreed to going over that 500 foot -- or even increasing our -- the cul-de-sac length from 500 -- from 450 to 500, we wanted to understand, again, what's happening in the area and so 500 feet seems to be pretty consistent with local jurisdictions in the area. So, as I mentioned Caleb went out and took that broader net and looked and said what are other areas doing. So, we think we have a workable solution here. So, we went ahead and the black text above you is what the applicant was proposing. We came in with these changes -- will allow up to 500 feet. We think that is pretty consistent with the area. So, we are amenable to that change. But we want to also give the development community flexibility in going up to 750 feet, but holding him to a maximum number of dwelling units and that number landed -- that we landed on was 20 and that seemed to be somewhat of a consistent number throughout the nation that, yeah, we will let you go up to a certain extent, but we will cap you at the number of units that could take access off the -- the extended cul-de-sac. Also mention to you here, we also wanted to give flexibility in case there aren't any other stub streets to the property or there is some kind of topography issues or irrigation facility that prohibits the extension of the roadway, too, and that's pretty consistent with other section of our code for our block length standards. And, then, we also wanted to define how to measure the length of the cul-de-sac, because, again, it's arbitrary, it wasn't well -- well defined in code and so, again, Caleb put a lot of this information together for you to take under consideration this evening and we did have conversations with the applicant and I believe they were in agreement with the changes as well. Just to -- to put some -- the text to a graphic, certainly here is an exhibit that we put together. This represents exactly what we have -- what I just presented to you in the code change in a -- in a situation where there may be an example of a 750 foot cul-de-sac where there is no adjacent connectivity with the adjacent property. So, you can see it's limited to 20 homes on that and, then, there would be connections into the adjacent subdivisions. That would be one -- one of the goals that we would get. Now, I would mention to the Commission that it's not the intent of staff to support 750 foot cul-de-sacs throughout the city. Again, we always want to promote interconnectivity where we can and provide stub streets and promote shorter block lengths. So, this isn't just a tool that we want to use haphazardly and just approve Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 42 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 40 of 45 all these long cul-de-sacs. Again, we have plenty of policies in the Comprehensive Plan that speaks to interconnectivity and stub streets, but we want to -- we understand there are circumstances out there where this may not be possible and that's why we are here this evening. Caleb also did a quick review of other cul-de-sacs in our community and he communicated to me that based on his research and survey of area photos of our city, there is only actually three cul-de-sacs in all of Meridian that have more than 20 homes that access on a cul-de-sac and those numbers were like two or three lots above the 20. So, again, staff is -- is pretty comfortable with that -- that -- limiting the number of homes off of a cul-de-sac to 20. Here are some alternatives. Again, as I mentioned to you, we don't want to encourage cul-de-sacs. The idea is to work with developers and property owners to find solutions to do that. So, an example of one is where we could have cul- de-sacs and an example of where the developer could connect the streets and essentially you had the same number of lots, but not impact the development at all. And, then, as I mentioned to you we also took it upon ourselves to work on a section of that Silver Springs project where we had struggled with that cul-de-sac length and so that graphic in the upper left-hand corner is what was approved with the cul-de-sac contingent upon this text amendment and, then, as you head to the right-hand screens you can see where there is other ways they could have redesigned it and still kept generally the same lot count. They would have only lost a lot with the middle, the better version of the graphic, and the best option they would have lost two lots. But there are ways to mitigate around cul-de-sacs and making projects work. So, just wanted to go on record and give you some options as well. And certainly in your motion if you feel like we should add graphics to our code to kind of represent those text changes, you can include that in your motion as well this evening to include something -- this graphic as something we can incorporate as well -- incorporate this graphic in accords with the text changes as well. Other than that, again, we have been in communications with the applicant the whole time on the proposed changes. I know Mr. Yorgason had a conversation with Caleb this afternoon. I'm not sure if he's proposing any changes this evening or not. I will let him speak to those. But staff is recommending approval of the text changes with the recommended changes in the yellow text before you. I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And I noticed that the fire department hadn't had a chance to respond to this. I just was -- I'm curious as to their thoughts on it and even looking at the graphics, I'm thinking about something going down -- especially the long, straight cul-de-sac here, if that's 750 feet long and we got to get, you know, four or five fire trucks in there to fight a fire, that seems like it could cause quite an issue. Parson: Well, Commissioners, I'm not a fire expert, but I have dealt with this and had many meetings with the fire department. So, yes, their code allows for 750 feet, contingent upon wider road. So, right now I know ACHD's policies, they have shifted their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 43 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 41 of 45 direction a little bit over there. They want narrower local streets. So, in this particular case I believe in working with the previous fire marshal a cul-de-sac of this length would have to be 36 feet of pavement as well -- 36 feet wide between the curb and -- the two curbs you have to have 36 feet of asphalt. So, that's what's going to drive the width of the cul-de-sac is the fire code. So, just a wider road for them to get down that roadway faster -- Seal: Okay. Parsons: -- and not have the obstructions. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Bill, you correct me if I'm wrong, they would allow in fire code 30 houses on a cul-de-sac section; correct? Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. On a single access up to 30 single family homes can be on a roadway. Correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, can -- right now the way it stands can they not extend a cul-de-sac through alternative compliance? Parsons: Commissioners, that is not an option at this time. The code is very black and white on this particular case as we found out at City Council. We cannot waive that. It says no cul-de-sac shall be greater than 450 feet in length at maximum. Then there -- again, the expectation is you design -- you design around it, just like we have shown in these graphics. There is ways to do it. It's just -- you have to put pencil to paper and make it work. Cassinelli: Yeah. Is that an option is to -- is to keep it -- keep the lengths as is and -- and -- Parsons: Commissioners, yeah, if you don't agree with changing the code, that's -- you're a recommending body. If you don't like the proposed changes you are more than welcome to recommend denial of the application. Cassinelli: But I mean is that an option as far as getting alternative compliant to -- Fitzgerald: In the future? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 44 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 42 of 45 Cassinelli: Yeah. So, keep it -- keep the lengths as is, but allow alternative compliance to -- is that more of a headache -- Fitzgerald: Want to say that -- that puts pressure on staff to figure out, instead of having the applicant can do it for them. I mean that's -- bring in what you want and, then, work with the staff to come up with the right -- Parsons: There is pros and cons to all of it, to be honest with you, because alternative compliance -- it is, essentially, a staff level variance and it's -- it's on a case-by-case basis, so that you have -- at least you have the ability to say no at some point with it, where this is code this is citywide, so everyone if they comply with this, you -- essentially you are shifting the burden from staff versus shifting the burden to City Council. So, that's kind of the pros and cons here to it. But certainly with annexations and with some of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan if -- if staff doesn't feel that the extended cul-de-sac is the right fit, we can certainly recommend modifications and -- or denial of their annexation. We have that ability. But, again, what we are proposing this evening I think is -- is a good alternative. We talked about it. We have been working with everyone out there and I think this works for everyone. Again, the intent isn't that you have 750. Fitzgerald: Everybody having -- Parsons: -- 750 linear foot cul-de-sacs throughout the City of Meridian. We still need connectivity. Fitzgerald: Well -- and the 500 that's only 50 more feet. But I mean giving the City Council the ability to shift in within that -- that 500 to 750 I think is reasonable. Parsons: Certainly you guys will be able to weigh in on that as part of your recommendation onto City Council. I don't want to just say okay, kick it off down to Council and let them decide on it. I mean ultimately they are going to decide, but you have the ability to say, yes, whether or not you support the long cul-de-sac and forward on that information onto City Council with your recommendation. Cassinelli: And, then, Bill, another question. What -- right now what is the maximum block length, so I can have a perspective. Parsons: Well, the code right now restricts block length to 750 feet and, then, Council can go up -- you can go up to a thousand feet with ped connection or open space or an alley. There is certain guidelines. And, then, the Council can approve up to 1,200 linear feet when you have large waterways, arterial roadways, topography -- some of the same similar language that you see with this text change. Cassinelli: Okay. So -- so, the 750 foot cul-de-sac could be as long as -- and just for my perspective, that could be as long as a -- as a standard maximum block length right now. Parsons: That is correct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 45 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 43 of 45 Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Would the applicant like to come forward or we had -- we had -- do we -- we do have an applicant. Want to come forward and discuss with us. We are going back and forth with staff, but -- thanks for being here. Waite: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Dean Waite. 4283 Nystrom Way, Boise, Idaho. 83713. I do appreciate your time today and I will throw away my notes and won't make this a long speech. I do appreciate Bill and the rest of the staff helping us with this. The one point I do want to make is that during our presentation and the work with City Council and with the staff on Silver Springs -- in the City Council meeting we were directly asked by the City Council to make this proposal. They -- they wanted -- they wanted to approve this as Bill stated, but they could not, their hands were tied. In talking with staff and with their -- the Council, they could not do what they want to do and so we went through, did the homework, checked with the other local jurisdictions, which are between 500 and -- like Boise and ACHD up to 750 and -- and tried to find something that -- that we thought worked and so here we are today and we were -- yeah, we are okay with the changes that the staff has recommended to what we propose. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Mr. Yorgason, do you want to come and testify, since you are the only one in the room. Yorgason: Thank you. For the record Dave Yorgason. 14254 West Battenburg Drive, Boise. And just a couple things. First of all, again, thank you, staff. Appreciate all the work you have done and the research you have done and that's exactly right, as I stood and testified to City Council, they asked us to come back with an application, which is what we have done. Lots of discussion with the fire chief to make sure it was compatible with what they wanted and be consistent with the other cities. I got a copy of the staff report a couple hours ago, so happy to do a quick little peruse through it and, additionally, I also wear the hat of the Building Contractors Association and the BCA has not had a chance to review this and make a formal position, though I have talked to a couple developers and I look at my experience in developing in the city here, as well as other surrounding cities, and, really, the only question that will come up is the number of units being restricted to 20 on -- on the streets. I don't want to make that a big deal tonight and it's really important for them to keep moving forward with their final plat and their construction drawings for their development. However, I do know that I did a quick little sketch if I were to do it -- not a 750, but a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. Not in an R-15, but in an R-8 zone with the standard lot sizes that are in R-8 zone. I actually come up with 29 lots. So, 29. So, the 30 lots that Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to as -- that would be restricted based on the -- the single access -- if we had a lot of discussion with that, we would appreciate that. I know to raise that number from 20 to 30, but I'm not here to make a big deal out of that as well. I haven't cleared a whole lot of -- our association, the BCA, has not actually made a formal statement on that. What's really more important is to have this application move forward, so they can keep moving forward with their construction drawings. Lastly, the city made the -- the condition -- the requirement that they will file Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 46 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 44 of 45 their final plat application after whatever is approved by the City Council of this modification to the code change. Commissioner Cassinelli, I appreciate your comments with regard to alternative compliance. I love that idea. This was what was directed by the Council. And also I appreciate why, meaning don't put the pressure on staff to be arbitrary with the decisions, but let's be consistent with across the city and so this bump up from 450 to 500 makes a lot of sense. So, with that I appreciate the comments and approve what was being presented here and I will just stand for any questions you might have. Fitzgerald: Any questions? Thank you, sir, very much for being here. Yorgason: You're very welcome. Thanks again. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Any questions for staff before we close the public hearing? Can I get a motion? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for file number H-2019-0107. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0107. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would be in favor of moving forward with this. I would like to include the graphics with the text changes. I think -- Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: -- pictures say a thousand words. I would not -- I don't think I would want to entertain moving that from 20 to 30 lots. I think that's -- I mean fire, everything -- I think there is other ways to do a street with that much density. I don't think it needs to be down a cul-de-sac, so -- my two cents. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Thoughts? So, I -- I have no -- I think as Council is going to see this again when we bring it -- I think they -- if they want to take it to the 30 and match the fire code they can do that. I want to allow the applicant to move forward as well and I have no problem with the changes. I think it -- it makes sense. Again, it gives Council leeway to approve based on design and uniqueness of typography or other Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 47 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 45 of 45 things to approve a larger block length if they need to, but I think this makes sense. So, someone want to make a motion? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0107 as amended by staff in the staff -- staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. Cassinelli: Are you going to have the graphics? Seal: With the -- with the following modifications: That we include the graphics with the text changes. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve -- or recommend approval of file H- 2019-0107, street length for cul-de-sacs UDC Text Amendment and all those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate you being here. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I need one more motion. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a motion to adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: We are adjourned. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. (AUDIO RECOR OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED By Adrienn�leatherly, Pe�uty Clerk Chris Johnson, City Clerk �, 0 1 tq MAN DATE APPROVED r,Ucusr i, P`vO 1963 O� 4 "00 w i Ss" Qom. ��6 CEh,TEF at �h e'(AE�SJ.