Loading...
2020-01-16 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 16, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 16, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Andrew Seal. Members Absent: Commissioner Reid Olsen. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Sonya Allen and Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Joseph Dodson. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance X Lisa Holland Reid Olsen _X Andrew Seal X Rhonda McCarvel Vacant X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting for the date of January 16th and let's start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda -- of the agenda. One --just for the audience, we have one item on the agenda, which is the Skyward Subdivision, file number H-2019-0087, which will be opened only for the application to be withdrawn. So, that -- we are going to only open that up for them to remove that application from -- from the docket and, then, we will -- with that change can I get a motion to accept the agenda. Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and an agenda -- or a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented for the date of January 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 4 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 2 of 59 Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of January 2, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda, which is the approval of minutes for the January 2nd -- 2nd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: At this time I will explain the public hearing process for the evening. We will open each item and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report the findings regarding how the item -- or the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with their recommendations. After the staff has made a presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so and after the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. There is an iPad -- or multiple iPads in the back. Please make sure if you would like to testify on a certain application that you sign up in the back. We will make sure that everybody has a chance to speak if you wish on certain applications. Is there anyone here representing an HOA? Okay. We will skip that portion of that. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given an opportunity come back up, ten minutes to kind of respond to public testimony, answering any questions and close the discussion and at that time we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will, hopefully, have a chance to deliberate and make a recommendation or approval to City Council on the application. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from November 21, 2019 for Skyward Subdivision (H-2019-0087) by The Land Group, Inc., Located East Of S. Eagle Rd., Approximately '/4 mile South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 5 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 3 of 59 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 268 building lots and 17 common lots. Fitzgerald: So, with that we will move to the first item on our agenda, which is file number H-2019-0087, Skyward Subdivision. Can I get a motion -- or we will open it specifically for the reason of withdrawing it and -- Andrea, do we -- is the applicant here for that or are we just opening it and, then, having it withdrawn? So, can I get a motion to withdraw the application? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move that we withdraw the application for file number H-2019-0087 for Skyward Subdivision. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to withdraw the application H-2019-0087, Skyward Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from December 5, 2019 for Edington Commons (H-2019-0109) by G20, LLC, located at 3610 N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 14.56 acres of land with R-15 zoning; and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 92 building lots, 10 common lots and 4 other lots for common driveways on 13.49 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. We will move on to file number H-2019-0109, Edington Commons, and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. If I may real quick I would like you to enter -- I would like to introduce you to our new associate city planner Joe Dodson. So, he has recently joined us and you will be seeing him at future Commission meetings, so -- Fitzgerald: Hopefully you will help Sonya, because I know she's going crazy. We love her and we want to make sure she stays around. Allen: Need the help. Yes. Thank you. Good news. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 6 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 4 of 59 Fitzgerald: Make yourself welcome. Allen: Alrighty. So, moving on to the first item. Edington Commons. Since the Commission hearing for this project back in December, on the 5th, a revised preliminary plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations have been submitted by the applicant to address some of the issues discussed at the hearing and in the staff report. The revised plans have been included in the updated staff report. Fitzgerald: Sonya, before you continue, as we continued this specific application last time we are going to narrow the -- the comment -- public comment we are going to take on this application to specifically the areas that we asked for in the continuance and so I can go through that after you are done giving your presentation, but I want to make sure we had that clear. Go right ahead. Allen: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant did submit a letter and staff did provide a memo in response to that letter and I will just go through that real quick. The letter from the applicant was dated January 10th and you should have that in your packets. The first item is the parking plan. A secondary fire access. The fire department has no issues with the parking plan or emergency access as proposed. Second is the eaves. The revised elevations do not address staff's concerns as they do not have one foot eaves on all four sides. If the Commission determines the proposed elevations are acceptable, they may recommend approval of the provision to City Council. Excuse me. Not approval. Removal. This is recommended for aesthetic, as well as drainage reasons. Color schemes. UDC 11-513-8132 states design review may be required for single family residential detached homes if required as part of a development agreement, which staff is recommending. This is to ensure consistency and the quality of appearance and design between attached and detached dwellings within the development, as attached dwellings are subject to this requirement. Schools. Per an updated memo from Joe Yochum, the West Ada School District, in regard to school capacity, the timing of this project is such that Owyhee High School will be online by the time there are residents living in this project. There are no underutilized middle schools in this area. Sawtooth Middle is close to capacity. There are also no underutilized elementary schools in this area, but Pleasant View will be opened in August 2020 and the cap on Hunter Elementary will be lifted. Enrollments for next year are unknown at this time and he requests no homes in this development are allowed to be occupied until 2021 . Commercial use of the property to the south. There was some -- quite a bit of discussion at the last hearing on this. While the proposed development is consistent with the future land use map designation of medium -- medium density residential, as far as the use and density is concerned, the comp plan includes goals to proactively address conflicts between incompatible uses. Because it was the desire of the Commission with a previous development application on the commercial C-C zoned property and mixed use community designated parcel to the south to have the two properties develop uniformly to ensure mix and integration of uses, staff included a recommendation in the staff report for the Commission to determine if their proposed single family development in itself provides an adequate transition to the mixed use designated property to the south. No associated conditions of approval are recommended by staff,just to be clear on that. A regional pathway. A ten foot wide multi- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 7 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 5 of 59 use pathway with landscaping is depicted on the revised landscape plan in the common area along the northern boundary of the site as recommended by staff and you can see that here on the plan on your right. If this pathway is constructed with landscaping as proposed, the common area will count towards the minimum open space standards in the UDC. Planning staff and the Parks Department approves of the applicant's proposal. They are planning to extend that pathway to the northwest to the sidewalk along Linder Road on the adjacent school property and from what I understand the school district is in agreement on that. If not, the applicant would be required to extend it on their property out to Linder Road. In regard to condition number A-1-C, the color scheme requirement, the applicant requests this condition is deleted. Staff does not recommend deletion of this requirement as discussed previously. Condition A-1-B, the eave requirement, applicant requests this condition is deleted. Again, staff does not recommend deletion of this requirement as previously discussed. Regard to conditions number A-2-A, A-2-13, A- 3-C and A-3-D, the applicant requests these conditions are deleted and replaced with a modified condition A-1-E. Staff recommends that -- in regard to A-2-A staff agrees with the request and has deleted the condition in the staff report based on the revised plan. A-2-13. Staff recommends this condition remain due to CPTED strategies that reduce the opportunity for crime through design. Locating the pathway and common area behind the building lots in the area not visible from the public street or public area is not supported by planning staff or the Police Department. I will just remind you that was this little pathway here along the east boundary of the site that comes off the common driveway and -- and goes back here behind building lots. Condition number A-3-C. Staff agrees with the request and has deleted this condition in the updated staff report based on the revised plan. A-3-D. Staff recommends this condition remain due CPTED strategies. That's the one we just discussed. And A-1-E, staff recommends modification per the staff report and I will just go ahead and read the proposed modification. A ten foot wide multi- use pathway within a 14 foot wide public use easement, with a minimum five foot wide landscape strip on each side of the pathway and landscape per the standards in UDC 11- 313-12C, shall be provided along the north side of the Coleman Lateral, outside of the irrigation district's easement. The pathway shall extend from the east boundary of the site to the sidewalk along North Linder Road and staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Hethe, how are you, sir? Clark: Good. Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address for the record, please. Clark: You bet. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street, with the law firm of Clark Wardle, representing the applicant. Good to be back. Just as a reminder -- and I will try to go briefly, because I think some of this is going to cover some of the same ground that Sonya covered, but just to confirm that we are on the same page on several of these items. Just as a reminder, this is a medium density development at Ustick and Linder. Ninety-two building lots. It's a high quality, low maintenance product for empty nesters and small families. As I mentioned at the last hearing, no code waivers are being requested, no Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 8 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 6 of 59 variances, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So, let's just jump right into the -- the issues that we wanted to talk about at the last meeting. As Sonya mentioned, parking was something that was discussed, whether it was inadequate. We exceed the code with four on-site parking spots per lot. Fifty on street. We did discuss that with Chief Bongiorno and Sonya and Bill and there is sign off on the parking. There was some discussion about secondary fire access at the last meeting. Again, we were at that -- in agreement at that point, that we would have a lot limitation until such time as we had our secondary access. We did discuss with staff and showed them that the -- that Lot 22, Block 2, which is shown with the red arrow here, would be our temporary access in the event that access is not provided to the south in a timely manner. Now, this is one that Sonya did mention just now. This is the relocation of the pathway access and I have pointed you to where we currently show that. Staff is asking for that to move I think between either 18 and 19 or 17 and 18, if I remember right. The location we have it right now was identified at our neighbors' request, asking --they were asking for a buffer. With that I will say that this is just not a hill that we, you know, plan to die on, so we would ask the -- the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know, to keep our neighbors' request in mind when you look at that condition of approval, but we will leave that to your discretion. Then, finally, on the list of resolved issues, we have secondary fire access. Let's see. Wrong one. It did not move. There we go. We have the regional pathway. And that think was the biggest issue at the last hearing and luckily that's been resolved. We have worked with the irrigation district, they are willing to allow for that drainage to be covered up and so that makes all of this pretty easy on the pathway side. So, we are happy to report that that -- that's addressed. So, in terms of points of discussion, we will start with the transition to the property on the south and, then, we will talk about school capacity and, then, we will end with the additional design standards that staff is talking about. think those are really the only items that are -- that are at issue. So, with regard to the transition to the property to the south. This is something I should have pointed out at the last hearing and so sometimes it's nice to have an extra bite at the apple. Not only is commercial development possible with that property in the south, but the site does have an approved plan with commercial uses. In other words, there is a path forward. It has an approval. Now, we have been told that we need to respect the existing land use map and comp plan. Everyone's been very clear that that's been high on the list for Meridian over the last several years. The uses that are proposed on the land use map have not changed, even with the last map amendment, but I also wanted to show the larger context and you can see that there on the north. As you know, the city typically plans for these mixed use nodes at the mid mile. So, we took a look and over there there is still 30 acres of commercially zoned property in that location. So, the way I would put it is that our property doesn't foreclose commercial use at this location. There is an existing approval for--for a commercial use at that location and even if it did there is 30 acres of C-C zoned property there at the mid mile. And I do want to make a couple other points on that. Both our neighbor to the south and ACHD have approved the stub location into the property on the south. Our neighbor has no objection to our plan. They have looked at the transition, which provides for a dense, fairly narrow product next to the boundary. It's at about ten units to the acre in that -- along that boundary. We do believe that those 11 units provide a good transition. If you were to switch it over to multi-family, for example, what you would probably see is something like two four-plexes with a big gap for parking Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 9 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 7 of 59 and you would also have to have a conditional use permit in order to make that happen. So, in sum, we understand the transition. In this case we think it's hard to argue that there should be a change to the comprehensive planning and we -- and we don't see that this has caused commercial to be impossible and we have discussed it with the neighbor and we think that -- that all of those concerns have been addressed. Okay. So, let's talk about schools. As we discussed at the last hearing, there is capacity in the district and as Sonya mentioned, since then we have clarified with the district that Owyhee High School and Pleasant View Elementary will both be online before our residents would enter the school system and we believe that that addresses the --the issues involving capacity. But I do want to talk about this in greater detail, because it's come up a number of times and just a couple of additional thoughts on this. The city, of course, has a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan plans for growth in Meridian. The property in -- this property in particular is planned to be part of that growth. It's been planned for medium density residential for quite some time. The school district is also planning for growth and those growth plans are reflected in the bond timelines that are shown in the West --West Ada School District's facility plan, which extends to 2028. So, those two planning efforts have to work hand in hand. The plan -- the city's planning for growth. The school district is planning to match that growth. Of course, there is going to be times when that capacity is stretched, but this application shows that the process is working. Again, Owyhee High School and Pleasant View Elementary will be online before our residents would make use of those schools. So, I think this issue is addressed, but I do want to address the question of whether there should be a condition of approval preventing occupancy before a certain time frame. Again, it's not required by the timing. You know, from a practical perspective we won't have folks moving in that have students before the end of May 2021, which would be the --the time frame that we are talking about here. I don't think it's a precedent that this board should set. I think any date that you pick, whether it's April 1 st or May 1 st or July 15th or July 31 st is going to, essentially, be arbitrary, but I also think it has additional policy implications that should be considered, because you would be ceding your land use authority to the school district, which would, then, control the timing of these projects. It would also allow something like an effective moratorium that -- and as you know, the city has a process that it has to follow if the city is going to stop development for any -- for any reason. So, the long and the short is we won't have residents using schools until after those schools are online and the planning has done what it's supposed to do. You know, this is in-fill. It's next to an existing middle school that's -- and this property has long been planned for residential development and we think a timing condition on top of that is both unnecessary and has unwarranted implications. Okay. And now here is the last one. This is probably the most fun. That was tongue in cheek, guys. So, we want to talk about what I'm calling uncodified design standards. As you know, design review is required for duplex dwellings. There is -- or -- and there is no design review in the code for the detached single family. Sonya is correct that you can impose additional standards with a development agreement, but there still should be a nexus and it shouldn't be arbitrarily imposed. So, let's talk about eaves. This builder BlackRock does install eaves on the front and back of their homes. I want to be clear about that first. Those eaves wrap typically around the front at least four feet. They also include eaves -- eaves on street facing sides where it makes sense architecturally. So, we are really talking about the sides of the buildings and not all of the sides even at that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 10 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 8 of 59 So, the staff condition imposes an across-the-board one foot eave requirement on all homes, quote, for aesthetic, as well as drainage reasons. To be clear, there is not a drainage problem without the eaves. The International Building Code does not require them. Drainage is addressed by fine grading down at the foundation. Water doesn't fall straight down. Water will go on the walls of any home. If you want to keep water off the walls and entirely away from the foundations you are going to need significantly more than a one foot eave. It's tongue in cheek, but you can keep watering walls -- water off the walls and the foundation if you did a snow globe bubble like in the Geico commercial, which I'm showing here at the top, but a one foot eave isn't going to do that. Eaves are not required for drainage. Again, they would be required by code if they were. So, this has to be about aesthetics. But those are in the eye of the beholder. The UDC does not have a standard that requires eaves. There are many housing styles that don't include eaves. You can have Cape Cods. You can have southwestern adobe. So, let's not micromanage the process. This is what the product looks like. It sells like crazy. We can't build them fast enough and they are one hundred percent within code. You know, the product includes the eaves on the front, back, and otherwise where appropriate and we should leave it at that and not make this subject to a subjective design decision. The color requirement is similar. Again, the UDC doesn't impose design review for detached single family product. BlackRock knows how to build it. They don't need to have those details dictated to them and if this is going to be imposed I think we should ask ourselves a couple of questions. You know, from a practical -- some call it a bureaucratic -- bureaucratic perspective what additional delay is that going to add to the process and, for example, is it in addition on the building permit checklist. But more importantly we would ask whether this requirement is being imposed on all single family development. If the answer is yes, then, why isn't it in code. And the answer -- if the answer is no, then, why is it being imposed only on this developer. Again, there is not a UDC requirement here. These are subjective decisions. They create additional administrative burdens. They are unnecessary and we would ask that they not be part of your recommendation to Council. So, just to sum, you have before you -- you have before you a project of 92 residential lots and no opposition. The biggest question should be does this meet code. If it does it should be approved without these additional uncodified requirements. And just to be clear, the -- the items before you are what we are asking to modify. The -- we have reviewed the language in A-1-E, which was -- had to deal with the -- the regional pathway and we are fine with staff's language there. So, in summary, we would be asking for you to delete A-1-C, which is the color scheme requirement, and A-1-D, which is the eave requirement. And, then, A-2-B and A-3-D, which is the relocation of the open space access, we would leave that to your discretion. So, with that I am happy to answer any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 11 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 9 of 59 Seal: One of the things -- I mean I want to bring up on the school requirement, I mean when somebody talks in school calendar years, I mean I --when I'm looking at this saying 2021, I'm thinking June. That's the end of the school year, the beginning of the school year isn't until the fall -- you know, the fall of that year. So, when -- when I'm thinking 2021, June is what comes to mind for me. So, I mean if we were to make that specific, that's what I would make it specific for. That way the calendar school year has time to close out any new school construction that is going to happen in that time. So, I heard you say May. I mean it's hard to put your finger on what we can do for the schools, but I know as -- I mean Planning and Zoning and City Council, we all have to work with the different organizations that are in the valley here. I can tell you that the schools are having issues, because they are all overcrowded. So, you know -- and I realize that you guys don't have a lot of students that this is going to cause to load into the schools. That said, at some point in time we got to start holding back a little bit. I wouldn't call it a moratorium, but at the same time you got to call it what it is. If there isn't a desk per student to sit out there -- there isn't a desk for the student to sit at and, then, the school has to shoulder that burden and we put that on -- on them, not the other way around. So, they are being a good neighbor, they are letting us know what's going on, they are letting us know that they are keeping up, but they are a little behind right now and they could use some help. So, I just want to make sure that I elaborated on my thoughts on that. The temporary access, is that going to be fully paved and up to code as far as what the Fire Department wants? Because there are requirements that the Fire Department needs to be met in order to provide that secondary access. Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, it will be -- it will meet emergency service standards. Seal: Okay. On the eaves I noticed on the -- the picture that you provided that there is full length gutter on almost everything that -- where an eave would go almost. Is that something that is standard in your design, is that they have full length gutter front and back? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, the -- they are always on the front, not necessarily on the sides. Seal: Not on the sides. I mean the sides generally don't have them, but on the -- are they front and back of the house or just front? Clark: I believe is also on the back. Seal: And they are full length? Clark: Yes. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 12 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 10 of 59 Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Would you mind flipping back to the -- the plat that you have got on there. Clark: Sure. Holland: I just wanted to clarify one more thing. I know we talked about this last time. So, all of the red are your single family and all of the beige are your duplex or is it the other way around? Clark: Commissioner Holland, the distinction there is single story versus two story. So, the -- the pink lots are single story. The yellowish lots are -- are potentially two story. Holland: And, then, what percentage of the development would be duplex style versus single family? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, so, 90 percent of the single story product would be duplex. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Clark: Mr. Chair, if I could, on -- I did want to address something that Commissioner Seal had said about the schools. Now, the point I was trying to make -- and maybe I didn't make it very well -- was that selecting any date, whether it be May, June, July is necessarily arbitrary, but it has a huge implication on someone's construction schedule, their interest carry, all those sorts of things. What we are talking about in this case is a project that will not have residents before May of 2021 , which is really when the cutoff would be, because, then, you would have the next school year -- by the time they get there they would be ready. So, my point is is that a condition on timing is unnecessary as a result of that and that if you -- and my suggestion to the Planning and Zoning Commission is that the more you go down that road, the more kind of troublesome aspects that tends to raise. So, it's a little like a court -- you know, when they are -- when they are making a decision they could make it on a number of different bases, but they -- they will not make a decision on something that isn't necessary to the outcome and in this case I look at it similarly, would -- given the timing we won't have anybody there by May 2021. So, a condition is unnecessary. Fitzgerald: So, I will comment on that. Can you -- Sonya, can you flip back to the school -- so, I -- I agree with you, I don't think the school should be dictating timing and that's -- we are giving up our ability to make good decisions about how to grow and I think we need rooftops before some of that stuff comes. That being said, when you guys were using -- and can you flip to the next one where the school's pictures are? You guys are using this -- I'm going to caution you, because the legislature can change this in about five seconds and they have to vote every time a bond timeline has to come up. So, you're Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 13 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 11 of 59 talking about two giant entities that have to approve something and/or the voting population has to come forward. So, you guys are using this -- I appreciate that, but be careful on how far you push this. I agree completely the -- the word -- the M word should never be used up here in my opinion, but that's -- that's just how I feel. But I think be careful how you use this, because I think there are two entities that are very instrumental in how this gets used, because that bonding timeline is just a shot in the dark and there is legislation right now out there right now that would eliminate bonding completely. Levy bonds would go away. And that's a property tax issue. So, I think we got to be careful about how we use it. So, I -- I think -- I'm talking on both sides of the issue. I agree with you on the timing thing. I think that's a rooftop issue more than this, but I think this is something I would be careful on how you present this, because I think it can be a double edged sword. Clark: No. Mr. Chairman, that's a fair point. My -- my point was to -- to say that we have two entities that -- the city and the school district that are both trying to put plans in place for future growth. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Clark: Not that anything that you see on this page is absolutely in concrete. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions? Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone that has signed up to testify and as I -- I will let you answer first. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't show anyone signed up. Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to testify to something new? And I -- we are going to sequester this to the issues that have come up in the conversation this evening. Thank you. Cranney: Justin Cranney. Hawley Troxell. 877 Main Street. I would have signed up, but they don't work. There wasn't a slot to sign up, so I raised my hand. It was set up for something -- on another product -- other projects or didn't have availability. Simply put, I represent the Lester and Betty Vogel Trust, the owners of the property that is under consideration of this application. Simply put, as Hethe said, this -- the owners have long planned for this property to develop residentially. They have watched the growth and the change in the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map and they are fine with that and would recommend that this be sent to City Council for approval and I will leave it at that. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 14 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 12 of 59 Cranney: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much. Sir. The gentleman in back. Again, please keep your comments to the issues we brought up tonight and not on the general overview of the project. Green: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Dennis Green and I live in the BlackRock Subdivision right off of Ustick and Eagle. Okay. I had a whole list of reasons why I came here in support of this new Edington development, but I will restrict my comments as per your instructions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Green: First of all, I want to say that in Verado, a very similar development, parking has not been an issue. In my opinion, it's never been an issue. Across the street from my house we have parking for probably a half a dozen different vehicles and, then, the parallel streets to my street -- Sharptail probably could support 20 or 30 different cars. Between each of the houses there is space for additional parking. So, I guess I --just the plus of it, if you have too much parking it's probably a bigger-- bigger problem than having not enough, because you are going to encourage people to bring home their work trailers, their RVs, their boats, other kinds of vehicles that may or may not work and it really affects the value of our homes and our community. I really support BlackRock and our HOA for maintaining the standard, because two years I have lived there and all I'm experiencing now is an increased value in my property. Thank you. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir, very much. We appreciate you being here tonight. Green: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. Ma'am. Folden: I am in favor of -- Fitzgerald: Ma'am, please, state your name and your address for the record so we have it. Folden: Oh, I'm sorry. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Folden: My name is Tina Folden and I live at 2241 East Kamay Drive in Verado Sub in Meridian and it's my understanding that Edington Commons will offer similar housing as Verado and that's something I do support. I just passed my one year anniversary and I love my home. It -- for me living here gets better every day. It sounds like a question about parking has come up and I want to share that I have not experienced a single issue with parking. Before I bought I looked around at several other communities, but I chose Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 15 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 13 of 59 Verado because of the location and orderly uniform way in which the homes are designed. Yes, they are close, but I never use the side yard, so that doesn't matter and the fact that they are close does not allow for accumulation of junk that I saw in other neighborhoods. I chose BlackRock and Verado, because of the quality and home and location -- quality of the home and location. The CC&Rs aren't forced and I believe that this neighborhood concept works. The point is I noted the parking situation before I bought and actually I appreciate the fact that people cannot park extra cars, so it doesn't clutter up the streets anymore. So, that was positive. Thank you for your consideration and support of these types of neighborhoods. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Anyone additional that would like to testify on this application? Hethe, would you like to come back up and close, please, sir. Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. I have nothing further, unless there are additional questions from the Commission. I do have a hard copy of the slide with our proposed changes if that's helpful for you. Fitzgerald: Lovely. If you can give it to the clerk, that's awesome. Is there any questions? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Hethe, on the eaves and the colors -- Clark: Yes. Cassinelli: -- are you taking the approach that you are standing pretty firm on -- on where you are at? Clark: Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we are asking for that to be removed from the recommendation moving forward to Council. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One follow-up question. This may be for staff first, but does our code required design review for the attached product already? Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, yes, it does require design review for single family attached and, then, it also allows for that to apply to single family detached when a development agreement is required, as I previously mentioned. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 16 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 14 of 59 Holland: So, I guess my question to you, Mr. Clark, is if 90 percent of the single story product is going to be duplex related and required to do the design review, then, you have probably got about 40 to 50 percent of the rest of your project that's going to be required to do design review if that's what we follow staff recommendations to do. So, would there really be a delay in timing if it's still going through for the other part of the product is what I'm wondering? Clark: Commissioner Holland, I -- you know, I don't know exactly what the delay would look like, because I don't know what the process is. You know, to Sonya's point, you -- you can agree and put in whatever you want in a development agreement. You could agree that every garage should have a rainbow painted on it or whatever. I mean you can -- a development agreement is wide open. Fitzgerald: Okay. Are we agreeing to that right now? Clark: Yeah. I just put that on the table. So, you know, from that perspective, yes, you can do what you want in a development agreement, but what we are suggesting is that more than half of our product would, then, be subject to a design review requirement that all other single family detached in the city is not subject to and so that's why we are asking for -- I kind of look at it as in addition that it's sort of a slippery slope. Where -- where does the additional regulation end that's not based in code. Holland: And I would think -- and I don't want to speak for staff, but my guess is that the reason they have requested to have the ability to do design review on the entire project is because half of it's duplex style in nature and they are going to have to do the design review anyway. Does that all typically take place at the same time when you're doing design review, if there is the single family versus -- or the attached product and the two stories? Would that all take place at the same time? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, I believe our -- I'm sorry, I don't personally review those. I believe our staff is just reviewing the building permits and signing off on them individually. Holland: Thank you. That helps me. Allen: Yeah. And the main reason on this one is -- is for consistency in the overall development. Clark: And, Commissioner Holland, yeah, that was the point I was going to make, is that it is per building permit. It's not a batch kind of analysis and, of course, we are going to have a coherent looking product. We have got millions of dollars invested in it. It has to -- it has to look good. So, that's -- that's not something that needs to be micromanaged by the city. Holland: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 17 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 15 of 59 Fitzgerald: Additional questions? So, I -- I'm going to throw it out there, because I -- because I'm sure I know where Commissioner Cassinelli is commenting from. So, if you guys are required to put the -- put eaves on this, I mean I -- I think it's a conversation that we have heard from others, that's where I think it's coming from. I don't want to speculate, but I think the city's heard that, that there is concerns over that design. So, as we are trying to work through this -- and maybe that's a City Council decision, but we are trying to do our best to do what we are hearing. There -- there may be challenges there; right? So, I'm just passing that along. But I know there is -- we have heard concerns. So, I just want to share. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Yeah. No additional questions? We appreciate it. Thank you so much. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, unless we have staff questions. Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing for Edington Commons, H-2019- 0109. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-00 -- Holland: 0109. Fitzgerald: 0109. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: The application is properly before you, Commission. Do you have additional thoughts or takes or comments you would like to make? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to kick us off with one of the questions that staff had proposed to us about the adequate transition piece. I know I'm mixed and shared my thoughts about that last time we met, but I think the challenge was with the small parcel that was to the south. We saw an alternative proposal come before us not that long ago that didn't tend to work well, because there wasn't enough room for access in and out. They were only allowed the one access point and they were right-in, right-out. So, my fear is that if you look at this from a regional perspective, we are still kind of inhibiting what will end up doing there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 18 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 16 of 59 Not to say that it can't be commercial or the plat that was originally planned for it, but my guess is that eventually someone will come back to us and say we tried everything else, we are going to put storage units here again and that seems to happen a lot. So, just throwing that comment out there. I would also go on the record to say I -- I like this concept in general. I think the development is well laid out. I think traffic flow makes sense to me. You know, with the size of the lots, the style of the product, I know they -- they build a nice house that sells quickly. I like where the park is and that they are going to have it fenced, because it makes it safer for kids on that corner, because that was one of our concerns. I like the new addition of the pathway. I know we have a few things to talk about related to that and some of the staff requests there, but in general I like the development, I just -- I struggle with the regional concept of where it's located and how it transitions to neighboring properties. So, I'm going to open it up there. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner McCarvel, you took your button. You pushed your button, so I was making -- oh. McCarvel: I -- Fitzgerald: You're not. Okay. Sorry. I'm jumping there. McCarvel: Just in general, I will say that is still my concern as well, because I just know that corner -- I agree with Commissioner Holland, it's going to come back to us later and say now this is the only thing we can put there is storage units, because of the access. But, yeah, I agree, I think the house sells well. I would -- designwise -- and it's personal preference and -- I like the eaves on all sides. I think it makes it more a finished look product, but it's certainly -- I think if it's not -- it's not code, I don't think we can just apply that randomly. And the other one I felt like I wanted to comment on was the placement of that lot -- of the common lot I agree probably shouldn't be back there along the fence. I think it's --you're just asking for trouble back there. I know it may seem like a nice buffer, but I think you're going to end up with unintended things back there that are worse than just having a house there. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Commissioner Seal. Seal: Oh, I agree with the eaves and knowing that they had -- they do the full length gutter -- I mean that aesthetically is more pleasing to me than when you see the houses kind of chopped up and they do the little ten foot thing over the back, you know, I think that that's -- it lends itself to being more aesthetically pleasing architecturally and there is nothing in the code that says that they have to have the eaves. I prefer that, but, again, you know, the houses are close enough on some of them you can jump from house to house so without the eaves on there it provides a little space. I don't feel that that's something that we can necessarily try to enforce. The design review -- I understand why they are asking for it and that's something the staff is recommending and I think they understand more than anybody that if that will or will not increase somebody's workload within the staff, so I would tend to agree with them on that. If that's something that they want to have in there, then, I'm fully supportive on that. On relocating Lot 21, Block 1, 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 19 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 17 of 59 have some mixed emotions on that one and I -- I do agree that having it back there right now -- especially it being located really close to a school -- probably a really bad idea. Future use, if there was something that was slotted to go in next door right now and they could show that, then, maybe that would be something that would be of value, but at this point in time I think that it's probably a bad idea to have it right behind that house or in that-- in that area. So, moving it would be a good idea. As far as the schools, I still stand on that. To me I mean -- I would like to say that we trust everything that's ever been said by anybody that's ever testified here. That said, if the school is asking that we not have any students come out of there until 2021, 1 think it's something we can pass along. Again, I don't think it's -- I don't think they are dictating it to us, they are giving us a choice. We don't have to put it in there. That said, if we do we are being good neighbors. I don't want them dictating or setting a precedence where they feel as though they can dictate, but I want them to understand that that's something that's a choice and we understand that they are overcrowded and if we can help them alleviate some of that burden, I think that's in our -- all of our best interest. I think I have covered all of -- all of the points. Fitzgerald: So, I'm going to comment, I -- because I -- because I said something to Hethe I will -- I will say that I -- I have a difficult time -- I understand that the schools are overcrowded and there is challenges there. I have a very difficult time with them dictating timing. It is extremely expensive and extremely -- time is -- is --for a developer is money. I mean that is a -- is a huge deal and I have a really difficult time with the school district being able to dictate that. So, I -- and the word moratorium for me is a -- is a no go for us. The Planning -- I mean if Council wants to say that sometime down the road or the Mayor wants to say that, that's their job. That's not our job. I think the M word should -- shouldn't be in our vocabulary, because we are here to help -- you know, help developments get through the process, not -- not choose policy and I think that's what the school district is doing as well and so I have a very difficult time with that. I have no problem with them reporting to us and giving us great information and I want them to come and talk to us as much as possible, but them dictating timing doesn't -- it kind of rubs me the wrong way. So, that -- that one is an interesting one to me. Walking through the neighborhood I think -- I'm in agreement with you guys on the -- on the pathway, I think that's a challenging spot right now. It's interesting on the -- on the -- the project to the south. Nobody's asked and we -- because we have all thought about -- thought through this 14 different ways from Sunday, I did appreciate the regional view on what's out there commercially and we have to take it application by application, so I'm having a struggle there. I -- and I don't want another storage unit across the street from it. I don't -- do we have a storage unit across the street from this now? So, we have to find a balance. Maybe I will stop there there for a minute and see if anybody else has any thoughts. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 20 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 18 of 59 Holland: I served on the Comprehensive Plan committee, along with a number of folks, but some of the conversations we had, too, were around where those regional centers made sense. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: There was a lot of interest for more being on the hard corners, because that's where a lot of development likes to be. Gas stations like to be on the hard corners. Some of those drive-in retail uses like to be on the hard corners. I think there is still a place for more commercial certainly to be available within a half mile to a mile of the site. I'm not -- I'm not second guessing that, but, you know, we still have -- the conversation we had last time was that the regional overlay that was down on the corner--the piece of property south of this could be carried forward to include this and not be required as a comprehensive map amendment change. So, they have the ability to come back if they wanted to take out a few of these residential lots and put in a little bit more commercial and make a better access point. I know they could consider that, but same reason you just said, time is money to developers and going back would be completely changing their plan at this point and that's certainly difficult to look at. I'm going to get off of that for a minute and just go through the rest of the comments for the different things that were asked of us, but for eaves I think I agree with the comments made over here. Aesthetically I like eaves on all sides, because I think it looks nice, your product, but when you have got homes that are a little bit closer together, I -- I don't see the need for us to require it if it's not required in building code either. Some -- I'm amenable to their request to remove that condition. Color schemes. That's where I was trying to get to with my questions to Sonya is if they are all together or if they are individual. I can see where there would be some frustration if they had to do that for the single family detached homes if they -- if no one else has to do that in other developments. I'm kind of 50-50 on that. I -- I tend to agree with what staff recommends for what their process is and if their building department has an easy process for design review, I don't know that it would be too much of an extra burden for them to do the design review, just to make sure it's a consistent neighborhood, but I certainly understand their point. So, I could go either way on that. On the schools, I also agree it's really hard to put a timeline on development. I would say by the time these are all constructed and occupied it probably will be 2021 anyway. Maybe earlier than 2021, but -- let's see. Regional pathway. I think I would stick with staff's advising on that and I think I would leave the other conditions that staff recommended on A-3-13 and A-3-D. That's what I have got. Allen: Excuse me, Chairman, may I make a comment, please? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Allen: Just information -- extra information for the Commission. If the Commission decides that eaves should not be a requirement or color scheme should not be a requirement, I would recommend removal of the design review requirement on the single family detached structures, because that was the main reason for that. So, if that's the direction you do go, the staff would just recommend removal of that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 21 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 19 of 59 Fitzgerald: Okay. Allen: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the guidance. Cassinelli: I guess it's my turn, uh? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: As I have stood by quietly. In everything we do our -- to me our role up here is -- is to -- is to review these projects and make decisions that we feel are the best for the city overall. So, that's -- that's what I'm trying to look at -- look at this at and -- and everything that comes before us. That said I will hit the school issue right off the top. I don't necessarily like them dictating us necessarily either, but we are -- citywide we are so far out in front of our infrastructure when it comes to roads, schools, just about everything that -- I mean we -- schools are way overcrowded, just -- I mean let's look at -- I mean look at the numbers. It's -- it's ridiculous. Traffic. It's -- it's insane. And, you know, we have to -- we depend on West Ada for schools. We depend on -- on ACHD for the roads -- all those things are out of our control -- out of the city's control. You know, not much we can -- we can do about that now. So, I'm -- I -- timing I think that will work out. I think everything else on this list I'm going to -- I want to stick hard and fast to staff's recommendation on everything from the design review and the eaves and the color schemes to -- to the lot location. One, that -- the common area, it is what it is because it's the way it's laid out, but that whole common area with the pathway to me is -- in my opinion it's -- it's almost -- it's almost worthless in this development. It's hidden behind two story homes across the board and the only way in and out right now that the -- that -- to access that you have to go down a private -- a private driveway that -- that common driveway down there at the end and -- and go around to the end. It needs -- there needs to be more open access to open that up to make that so that people can see that. Otherwise, it's -- it's -- it's three quarters of the open space is hidden from the entire development when you get inside that. That's my -- so, I'm -- from a -- just from an aesthetics, from a usability standpoint, let alone the -- the issue that -- that's been discussed with the crime, I think that lot needs to be where staff recommends it. I think that that pretty much covers a lot of that. So, I -- I'm going to stick hard and fast to what staff recommends from -- from top to bottom. From the regional standpoint, the negative that I see there is when something does develop out of there, as -- as we have talked about, if you want to make a left turn onto Linder coming out of that corner piece that we are not looking at right now, it would be -- they are going to go through -- they are going to go through this subdivision. So, it's going to -- whatever -- whatever gets hammered out down there eventually, it's going to drive that traffic through here, so, you know, I -- that was a -- that was -- that was a big point that we talked about last time in the -- in the -- and the street width -- width and all that, the Fire Department's okay with it. You know, it sounds like that one's dealt with, I suppose, but I think it is -- it's going to be a concern it's going to be an issue down the road. There is really little we can do about that here I think. I mean if -- if, you know, the approval is there for the -- for the -- the street width, I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 22 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 20 of 59 just don't think it's -- by the time you add that corner piece down below -- because traffic will be going out through there, there is no question about that. Anyway, that's -- that's all I have to say is just that I'm going to -- personally I'm going to stick hard and fast to staff's recommendation on every single item. Fitzgerald: Can I ask you a quick question of the -- the crew. I think -- just throwing an idea. So, we know that -- obviously we have the -- the family representative who owns this property and we have thought about floating that project to -- it has an approval on it, which is hard for me. Floating that to the north, which we talked about, and, then, you have a vacant lot with a house way back in the back to the east and so we are not asking them to float it that way. I mean there is -- it's not like it couldn't develop another way in the future and that's where I'm having -- I thought through this, because I knew it was coming back, and there is -- there is vacant land to the -- to the east of us or to the east of this property and so you can go put an assemblage together of those two pieces of property and -- and that gentleman came and said he was approving -- or he was supportive of this project. That gives me a little bit of pause, too. So, I -- so we can go assemble a part of his property in the frontage and take his access off of Ustick. So, we are getting focused on one access, which I know is an issue, because we have -- that's what we are -- is in front of us. But there is other vacant land around us that could be a discussion for the future. So, as we are talking about floating comp plan maps around, if that's another option as we throw it out there, does that have any thought process in this thing? Because I -- because we are talking about two separate pieces of property, two separate applications -- or potential application. So, just throwing it out there. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think it's certainly a good point to keep in consideration. I think the challenge we will have is that they are yellow on the future use maps, so when there is a developer that does end up going and buying that piece, they are not going to think about floating the designation -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: -- same as this application, they are going to come in with a medium density product and say it says medium density on the future use map and we didn't know we could float it, we don't want to float it. So, I see your point, but I don't know that we can float it, unless we ask Council to consider changing that on the map. Fitzgerald: Fair. Holland: And that may be a longer process than we would like to do. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Additional thoughts? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 23 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 21 of 59 Holland: Mr. Chair, one other comment, too, on the school district piece. I know we have -- we have kind of hammered that quite a bit, but looking at this specific product type I don't really see a huge concern, because it's -- Fitzgerald: That was my other point. Holland: -- it's not a big family -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: -- complex, it's not going to be a place where you're going to have six and seven children in each household. It's probably going to be one or two kids if you do and they are smaller footprint size. Fitzgerald: I think they are taking the heat for some of the bigger neighborhoods that have been built around them. Holland: And it's only 90 homes, so -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thoughts? Any additional talk through we need to do? Do you want to break it up into pieces? Seal: Yeah. I mean at this point I think we are just down to the -- to the eaves. I mean that's -- I don't know. You know, I -- and, again, I mean, you know, I will beat the dead horse a little more on the schools, but I would rather give somebody the opportunity to know that they can't do something, other than the school board to tell us they are overcrowded and that be my decision, that they come back and say we are overcrowded, my vote's no. Period. So -- because -- you know. And I sympathize for developers and builders where time is money, but at the same time every time we have to haul -- you know, one of these little micro facilities into a school or hire more teachers or figure out where these kids are going to go, the burden, then, goes on them and in our community we as taxpayers have to deal with that -- as individuals we have to deal with that, so -- the rest of it I do feel that the staff is justified in their recommendations. I think it's well thought out. I do think that the applicant has done a lot of work and I much appreciate the work that's been done in order to, you know, basically, comply with staff's requests. The --you know, again, the eaves -- I just don't think that's something that we can enforce or that we should try to enforce at this point in time. That might be up for a larger discussion above where we are at right now to put that into code. Fitzgerald: I think it -- I totally agree with what you're saying. I think if -- if City Council wants to have a conversation about whether they want to require eaves in everywhere, that's a policy discussion they need to have and it's hard for us to make that determination for them at this point. I think we are trying to deal with what's in code, but -- so, I agree with you. Commissioner Holland is thinking. Commissioner McCarvel, do you have any additional thoughts, ma'am? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 24 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 22 of 59 McCarvel: I would -- I am always in favor of supporting staff and most all their recommendations, but I do -- I just agree with the -- the eaves, personally, I would -- mean when I first read through this I was like, yes, the eaves stays -- that stays, because I had made notes all the way down and all these little comments, but in hearing all the testimony and stuff tonight I do -- I agree that it's just something -- if it's not in the code, then, it's -- it's not up to us to randomly enforce that. It needs to be changed. Like I said, higher -- a different place other than this commission and I think, quite honestly, with the schools I think we are splitting hairs, because in all reality the -- I mean the school is asking us not until 2021 and there is -- there is just -- realistically there is no way this is -- these homes aren't going to be occupied much before that anyway. I mean you could be talking a couple of months, but I just don't -- I think the number of children that would be in this development prior to 2021 is negligible as far as other stuff we have seen. think if it was a huge, huge project that would have a bigger impact on the schools, then, I think it would warrant more discussion and fine tuning, but I think it's kind of a moot point one way or the other. I mean -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, what I have heard from people is that they are okay removing the condition about eaves, because it's not required in building code. Color schemes, do we want that to remain for the single family detached homes or are we okay with removing the condition of design review for the single family homes? Fitzgerald: I think based on with staff's guidance -- I mean I know we have Commissioner Cassinelli's thoughts that he's pretty hard and fast where he is and so we know where that is. Cassinelli: I'm real hard and fast on that -- on the eaves and supporting staff on that condition. The colors, you're not going to add eaves at two years down the road, but somebody may move in and paint their house the day after they move in. Paint is flexible. But the eaves aren't and I -- that's why I'm supporting staff on their -- on their position there and I seem to be the -- the odd man out, so I know I'm going to stand on any -- I won't -- I'm not going to make a motion, because I know what will happen to that, but know how -- how I will vote on any motion made, I will just say that. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I guess my thought -- I mean I guess what I heard tonight is these -- it's the same product that's already built pretty much next door and I just -- I don't know how we can enforce that these homes have eaves when the product in the next subdivision doesn't. I mean -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 25 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 23 of 59 Fitzgerald: I think that's -- and, again, I think it's a policy discussion that is above our -- McCarvel: Yeah. I mean I'm totally with you. I -- Cassinelli: When you say next door, what -- talking about a subdivision that's across town? Fitzgerald: It's down Ustick about a mile and a half or two miles. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm with you. I think they would look better. I think they are -- I mean there is functionality to it. I think it's a good idea to have them, but I just -- I don't think it's with this body to -- Fitzgerald: I think it's something that Council has to take up, because I think we have heard about it enough now, but it's not in code and we are -- and that's our job is to make sure we are adhering to code and the Comprehensive Plan. But it not being in code we have a tough spot. We can require it under a DA, but you can require -- as they said like put rainbows on houses and -- I mean that's the challenge is -- is -- Cassinelli: Well, this is our recommendation to -- to Council. Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: True. Cassinelli: So, it still comes down to Council -- the Council's decision on it. Fitzgerald: And I think they are going to have to take a policy position on it, so -- Seal: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Cassinelli, I mean I would think that we could recommend striking that with some kind of verbiage in there that it needs larger review. Would that be something that you are amenable to? Because I do agree that if we go down the road of trying to enforce something that's not code, then, we open ourselves up for all kinds of things that could happen down the road, where I think it is something that needs to be brought up and the City Council needs to take forward or pass, you know, further back down to staff or committees in order to take action on it. That said I would still want to recommend striking it. Cassinelli: And I guess it still comes down -- my -- from my perspective if we make the recommendation to approve based on staff's conditions, then, it still -- it still falls on in Council's lap to -- to strike that or keep it, because Council can strike it. That's -- when it comes down to it it's to them. Fitzgerald: Hopefully they will read our minutes and I would guess they are going to get the full ear of our thought process that this probably needs additional thought from them. I -- at this point, though, I -- I'm kind of at -- the challenge that I -- we are recommending Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 26 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 24 of 59 something that's not in code. That's my challenge, so -- but I understand exactly where you are. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I -- I would be prepared to attempt a motion, but I would put in there the same consideration that staff requested of us, that there is a recommendation in our deliberation for the Council to determine if the proposed single family development provides an adequate transition, so that they would have that conversation. Fitzgerald: I have no problem with that. Commissioner Seal, do you have -- Seal: That's already in the staff recommendation, though. Holland: I just would emphasize it. Seal: Now, you have thrown me off of me making a motion, so -- Holland: Like I say, I'm happy to attempt one, but -- Seal: Go ahead. Fitzgerald: Go forth, ma'am. Holland: All right. Mr. Chair, I would move -- my little cheat sheet is missing for -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0109, for Edington Commons as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2020, with the following modifications: That we would strike condition A-1-D requiring eaves, but the Council would consider what policy should exist for other developments as a citywide nature. That we would also modify condition A-1-C related to color schemes with the removal of condition for design review on single family homes, unless Council would like to re-inactivate that. And that for the Council meeting that they would deliberate on determining if the proposed single family development in itself provides an adequate transition to the mixed use designated parcel to the south and what could be done about making sure that that commercial piece doesn't get blocked in. Seal: Second. Allen: Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yes. Allen: Commissioner Holland, may I clarify your motion? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 27 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 25 of 59 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Allen: You said no DR for single family homes. Did you mean detached homes? Holland: Correct. Sorry. Yes. No design review for single family detached homes. Fitzgerald: Is the second -- or in -- Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Any other further comment? Commissioner McCarvel, you had -- raise your point. McCarvel: Did we get everything -- I mean do we need -- Fitzgerald: Sonya, do you have everything you need? Everything else is still in place? McCarvel: Everything is in place in the -- Sonya: Excuse me. I didn't have my mic on. On the relocation of the common lot along the east boundary. Holland: Correct. I'm in agreement with staff on the -- it's halfway in the relocation of the common that. McCarvel: It's worded properly in the staff report that we don't have to address it -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Got it. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: What -- is -- the issue of the schools, is that a staff recommendation or that's just comments in there from West Ada. Fitzgerald: That's what Yochum was commenting. Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, that was a comment from West Ada School District. There is no staff condition on that. Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 28 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 26 of 59 Fitzgerald: So, I have a motion and a second. Any other additional comments? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Cassinelli: Nay. Fitzgerald: It looks like you're recorded, sir. Cassinelli: Huh? Fitzgerald: Would you like to be recorded as nay? Cassinelli: I'm recorded as nay. Fitzgerald: Awesome. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing Continued from December 19, 2019 for Shelburne South Subdivision (H-2019-0106) by Shelburne Properties, LLC, Generally Located on the North Side Of E. Amity Rd., West of S. Cloverdale Rd. 1. Request: Annexation of 29.01 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 99 building lots, 19 common area lots and 1 other lot on 27.9 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to the next application on our docket tonight is file number H-2019-0106, Shelburne South Subdivision and, Sonya, you are back on stage, ma'am. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 27.9 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located on the north side of East Amity Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Cloverdale Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is future single family residential properties in Shelburne East Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the west are single family rural residential agricultural properties zoned RUT in Ada county. To the east are single family residential agricultural properties in Boise's area of city impact and to the south are single family residential and ag properties and Amity Road, zoned RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation on this property is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation of 29.01 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district for the development of 99 single family residential detached homes at a gross density of 3.55 units per acre consistent with the medium density residential future land use map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 29 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 27 of 59 designation. Single family residential detached dwellings are a principal permitted use in the R-8 district. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown consisting of 99 building lots, 19 common lots, and one other lot on 27.9 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases as shown. The proposed minimum lot size is 5,446 square feet, with an average lot size of 6,994 square feet. One access is proposed via East Amity Road and one local street access is proposed from the north once Shelburne East Subdivision is constructed. One stub street is proposed to the west and two stub streets are proposed to the east for future extension and interconnectivity. Local street access is provided to the out parcel, the Bunch-Kirkwood property at the south -- excuse me -- southern boundary of the site for future access upon redevelopment and that is this parcel right here and it is not included in this plat. An access easement is required to be provided to the Williams property and that is this property right back here. Access -- an access easement is required to be provided across a Lot 1, Block 4, and that is -- where is my pointer. This lot right here, which currently has access via a private lane from the north. So, the existing home on this property right here is proposed to remain and, then, there is a single family home on this property that would have an access to the public street. The pathways master plan to fix the pathway along the east side of the Ten Mile feeder canal at the northeast corner of the site -- and that is in this location right here. A pathway is required on the east side of the canal. As this area is not accessible from this development without a pedestrian bridge and is it the east boundary of the city's area of impact, the Parks Department is not recommending a multi-use pathway is constructed at this time. However, a 14 foot wide public pedestrian easement should be dedicated to allow the pathway to be constructed in the future if needed. Instead, staff and the Parks Department is recommending a ten foot wide pathway is provided along the southwest side of the Nine Mile Creek and that is the creek that bisects the site here from the east to the northwest boundary of the site for future extension and interconnectivity with adjacent neighborhoods and the future school site to the west. And, then, there is a future collector street that's designated to be constructed right here and, then, this is a future school site right here. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Amity Road. It is an entryway corridor. Mitigation is required for existing trees four inch caliper and greater in size that are removed from the site as determined by the city arborist. There are approximately 30 trees on the site that are proposed to be removed. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required and that comes out to 2.79 acres of land. Their proposed open space consists of half of the street buffer along Amity Road, centrally located linear open space along the creek, a large common area near the southeast corner of the site and parkways, which exceed UDC standards. A minimum of one qualified site amenity is required. The proposed amenities consist of a sports court, pickleball court, a picnic area with a 20-by-20 shade structure, picnic tables and a bench, which exceeds UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations -- and, excuse me, this is a detail of the site amenities here that I was just speaking of. Conceptual building elevations were submitted that depict a variety of architectural styles for single family residential detached homes planned for this development. They are consistent with that in previous phases of Shelburne Subdivision to the north and northwest. Homes will range in size from 1,600 to 2,200 square feet and a large percentage will be single story. Written testimony has been received from Anne Kirkwood, David Palumbo and the applicant in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 30 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 28 of 59 requirement of a development agreement for the provisions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli. You're good? Additional questions? Thank you, ma'am. Would the applicant like to come forward. Thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record, ma'am. And the floor is yours. Nelson: Thank you. Before I get started do you have a -- can you pull up my presentation. Thanks, Sonya. Good evening. Deborah Nelson with Givens Pursley. My address is 601 West Bannock. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and developer team. Here with me tonight I have Megan Smith with the developer and also Ben Thomas with Civil Innovations. In case you have got any fact questions I can't answer, I may pull one of them up to help me. We appreciate Sonya's work on this and all the city staff's review and we appreciate the recommended approval. We have just got a couple of clarifications and requests for changes to the conditions of approval. We addressed this in our written response to the staff report and I will also go through that in detail tonight, so you can see where we have got requested changes. I don't need to spend much time on the overview of the project, because Sonya has done a nice job with that. I would just highlight that this is a great location for annexation. It's, obviously, contiguous to the city. The utilities are readily available. It's immediately adjacent to developed properties around us, including additional Shelburne developments that the city has approved and are under various stages of construction and occupancy and -- and that includes the original Shelburne that's to our northwest and the Shelburne East that's approved and will begin construction soon to our north. And so the city already has experience with this developer and the quality of homes and design of their layout that they bring. I don't think we need to go over this -- the plat and detail, but I would answer questions, because Sonya has done a nice job with that. I just want to point out that we plan to begin phase one, the infrastructure, in the fall of 2020 and the construction of the homes in the spring or summer of 2021. 1 also want to point out that ACHD has reviewed and approved this development and noted that there are many areas that will be improved in the immediate vicinity of this project soon. Cloverdale to our east is scheduled to be widened to five lanes within the very next planning cycle, '21 to '25. So, this is a funded improvement that will happen soon. Additionally, Amity Road is in the same period plan to be scheduled to be widened to three lanes and so we will have significant roadway improvements available to serve this development. As Sonya has highlighted, there is significant landscaping and open space and amenities here, well above what's required by the city code and, really, a nice design that centrally ties in all of the development along this Nine Mile Creek and provides access to all the homeowners. There are only -- there is only one amenity that's required, but we are providing a sport court, as well as a picnic area with a shelter, and we have also proposed improvements along Nine Mile Creek and I will discuss the extent of those improvements a little further in a minute. Oh, did I go backwards? Here we go. And the building design and elevations -- there will be a variety of homes. These will be very similar to the product -- really a continuation in providing some continuity with the existing Shelburne approvals, which are, as I mentioned, just to the north and northwest of this. There will be a mix of single and double story homes, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 31 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 29 of 59 the majority are single level, really responding to current demand. The home sizes ranging from 1,600 to 3,000. The architectural style will be a mix of contemporary and modern farmhouse. So, I just want to focus in on a few of these conditions of approval. We ask for some changes. First of all on the fencing, we did ask for the opportunity to provide open vision lattice vinyl fencing along the common areas. That is consistent with the code and would provide some continuity with the fencings that we will be provided along -- along the development, both in our development and in the adjacent developments and there is a staff condition that specified wrought iron in these locations. We are asking for the opportunity to provide a different type of open fencing. On Nine Mile Creek, we proposed an open water feature, a picture of which --an example is shown here and that was in our application materials. This just includes a lot of green space. It's a local amenity and really pretties up what is otherwise just an existing ditch and provides some nice open space and we did provide -- propose a five foot path along a portion of this, really centrally located around our amenities. Staff has requested that we extend that five -- that five foot wide path all the way to the east and west sides of the development and widen it to ten feet. The developers thought about that and they -- they are willing to extend it all the way to the east and west, that will provide the continuity that they want for future access to the school to site to the west, but asked that it not have to be ten feet wide. There is limited space here. What they asked for is to keep it a five foot wide path and an eight foot wide easement. That will allow still some pretty green space and a few of the additional reasons we would ask you to consider that request from the developer, is that this truly is a local amenity. It -- other than potential future connection to the school site on the west, it doesn't go anywhere regionally. It's -- it's actually piped past that to the north in the west and so it's underground, it's not going to be a long regional connection and, then, of course, to our east we have got the city of Boise and Cloverdale Road. So, this -- this is the end of it and so we appreciate the -- providing a continuity to our borders, we would do that, but to make it the size of a regional pathway when it really doesn't serve that purpose, we -- we don't want to incur that expense or lose the green space. Contrary to that what--and this --this isn't shown on your pathways plan, this isn't required or part of the city's pathways plan, but to the north of this, the Ten Mile Creek, which we just have a sliver of, that is the regional pathway that's designated and that is going to connect to other developments and so another reason not to provide a wide regional pathway like amenity just to the south of where you actually do have that. Additional comments and requests. The Freeman parcel -- Sonya touched on this. It's an existing home that's outside of the subdivision. They have -- it's -- the staff has requested that we provide an easement across our property -- across one of our lots from South Selatir Way and we are perfectly happy to provide the 20 foot easement that's requested, we just asked for it to be in a slightly different location just north of this. We had arranged that with Mr. Freeman when we came in with Shelburne East, which was developed just to the north of this and we are -- the location was agreed on with him and the applicant. We will provide that 20 foot easement as part of Lot 1, Block 3, at the final plat for Shelburne East, which is just to the north and that's the curved road that's drawn on the slide in that location. There we go. Staff has also asked us with respect to this common lot, Lot 1, Block 8, to designate this as unbuildable. That's the triangle piece -- kind of the remnant that's up here above the Ten Mile feeder canal. We don't plan to put any houses there, so we don't have a concern with that designation as it goes for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 32 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 30 of 59 residential or other structures, but we would like to preserve the opportunity to improve this as a future park, should that be a valued amenity. It is adjacent to our Shelburne East just north of this. So, it's not proposed at this time, because right now it doesn't really serve the -- the subdivision that's before you, but we would like to preserve the opportunity perhaps to put a dog park or some other appropriate amenity there. So, we just want to make sure the unbuildable designation isn't restricting any future amenities or improvements along that canal. In conclusion, we think this is a great project. It's got great amenities and open space above what's required. It's a nice quality housing product that's in current demand and we asked for you to recommend approval of what's before you as recommended by staff, but also as modified by Exhibit A to our written response to staff report and I would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much. Questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can -- I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. Nelson: Deborah Nelson. Cassinelli: Deborah. Thank you. The -- on this full plat map can you point out the -- with the cursor if you can, the Freeman property and where the -- kind of where the easement -- where you want it and where it's -- where staff has it depicted? Nelson: Yes. Right -- this is the Freeman parcel here. I think staff asked for it to be across the top at the -- of this lot or anywhere I guess. You didn't specify. Just 20 foot wide across this lot and we have asked for it to be just on the -- the north side of that. Cassinelli: Does that -- does that allow for full access with -- Nelson: Yes. Cassinelli: I see their lots right up under where it says proposed east -- east sub, in that -- Nelson: Yes. They currently have a driveway that comes down right here -- if you can follow my cursor -- that turns this corner. So, they already have this easement provision right here on the corner of their lot that's on --that's a part of this subdivision and so rather than come straight down from the south, we propose to bring it over from Selatir Way and that's the agree -- that's the location that we worked out with them with Shelburne East. We would designate that on our final plat as part of Shelburne East. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, what is the intent with that parcel that -- that large parcel there on the -- on -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 33 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 31 of 59 Nelson: And that is where there is an existing home that will remain. Cassinelli: Okay. Indefinitely? Nelson: I am sure there is an opportunity for redevelopment in the future, but currently that will remain. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thanks, Deborah. We appreciate it. Nelson: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, I don't think I get to -- get to the iPad comments. Did we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, due to that technical glitch we didn't capture any sign-ins. Fitzgerald: Okay. Weatherly: But that's been fixed. Fitzgerald: Sorry if the iPads weren't working, but we will hopefully get through this. Is there anyone in the public who would like to testify? Sir, come join us, please. Thank you for being here and, please, state your name and your address for the record. Wilson: My name is Brian Wilson. I am at 6171 Cuttinghorse Drive, Kuna. 83634. 1 own the property to the east, that subdivision is coming in. South Park. Right here. I don't know if you can see it. Fitzgerald: Is that on Arabian? Is that what that is? Wilson: It's Arabian. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Wilson: Okay. We have that subdivision. We haven't developed it yet, but we are working on it. We were required along the canal a 20 foot easement on the south side of the canal for a pedestrian path and for access for Board of Control and I'm just wondering -- so, that's just going to dead end right -- right there on the canal on the Ten Mile? Fitzgerald: So -- that's a great question. Sonya, I think we talked about this, but -- and we will have the applicant address it as well, but do we have -- there is an easement I know there --that's going to be there. Is there--what--we are not setting it up or anything else at this time; correct? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 34 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 32 of 59 Allen: Chairman, that is correct. Our pathways master plan depicts a pathway on the northeast side of that Ten Mile feeder canal. The Parks Department is requesting only an easement at this time. Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's on the north side, not on the south side; correct? Allen: Yes. Fitzgerald: You're developing in Boise; right? Wilson: Ada county. Fitzgerald: Oh, it's Ada county. Allen: That's unfortunate that -- Wilson: Ada county required us to do that and -- because we had to get approved by Boise city and that went to Boise city, too. And Ada county required it, because they said that was like a road -- trails to river or whatever. One of those deals. Fitzgerald: Road to rivers or -- Wilson: Roads to river. Fitzgerald: Road to trails. Allen: I think they got the wrong side of the canal. Wilson: Oh, yeah. Well, they required it for us, because they said that that's what we -- going to have to do, so -- and now Board of Control uses that all the time, so -- Allen: Is there any possibility, Chairman, not communicating directly with the speaker here, but -- Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Allen: -- for them to switch that location. Fitzgerald: Is it already done? Is already built out? Wilson: Oh, yeah. Well, we -- the first phase is already built and this is the last phase and -- yeah, it's already there. Fitzgerald: Okay. I will have the applicant address it when she comes back up. Any additional comments or -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 35 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 33 of 59 Wilson: No. No. So, they are going -- so, I'm just about ready to go to Meridian fire. We are in Boise city area of impact, Meridian fire, Meridian schools. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Wilson: And we tried to get our subdivision, since Shelburne started, the last 26 lots into Meridian, but Boise city would not let us out of the area of impact, so -- because our -- everything we have drains right -- we could hook into that sewer and be perfect, because everything drains -- it's a five foot drop from up here to down there for 26 lots. But, anyhow, we tried, but Boise city just said no way. And I didn't even -- I went to Kuna -- or to Meridian and you guys said, yeah, you could take it, but Boise city won't let us out, because they want to run their main line, 30 inch sewer line, through our property. Fitzgerald: Understood. Thank you for the information. We will have the applicant address that on your side, sir. Thank you very much. Any additional public comment or anyone who would like to testify on this application? Going once. Twice. Deborah, if you can come up and close, ma'am. Maybe get -- address how we are going to do ditch riding and those fun things on that easement -- or on Ten Mile Canal. Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are providing the easement that was requested by the Parks Department and city staff along the northeast side of the Ten Mile feeder canal. It will be located outside of the existing irrigation maintenance road. This is the side of the canal that is shown on the city's master pathways plan, as Sonya just said. would also just point out for you it's also the side of the canal that is just to the north of this property line that is required to be built out, you know. So, that is the side of the canal as shown in the city's master pathway plan that has been required of adjacent development. So, that's -- that is unfortunate that that wasn't matched outside of your jurisdiction, but we are -- we are building it or planning it in accordance with your plans. Fitzgerald: A triangle of canal easements -- okay. Nelson: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Mr. Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I just had a couple more questions. Sorry. Does -- so -- three questions, actually, Deborah. The -- the HOA -- is this part of the full -- the complete Shelburne and will they share amenities to -- to the other Shelburne -- okay. Thank you. Nelson: And I will just put on the record yes -- if that could be heard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 36 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 34 of 59 Cassinelli: The -- what -- what were your thoughts on the fencing? What did you -- because you didn't like the -- the -- the wrought iron, but you wanted to do some open fencing. So, what are you -- are you talking about like a three rail fence or something? What do you -- Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, actually, what they would like to do is provide the type of vinyl fence that has the open lattice work at the top. So, it -- and they would provide -- they -- what we have offered in the conditions of approval, the alternate language was to provide a detail showing that in the landscape plans to be approved. This is an allowed fencing -- open fencing type under your code and we thought it would match better with the existing vinyl fencing that we are putting for our privacy fences and it is our preferred fencing for that common area. Cassinelli: Okay. Nelson: It's a consistent style really. Cassinelli: A couple more questions. The -- the shelter that you depicted, are you -- can you go back to that -- Nelson: Sonya, can you put up that -- Cassinelli: You went through that real quickly. Have you considered other shelters that sort of fit with the design of the homes? This seems a little commercial like. Nelson: Well, I will ask Megan to correct me if I -- if she's got a different view on this. I -- I am sure that the applicant would consider a different style of shelter for a different aesthetic look. Cassinelli: The nod helps. And my final question. There were a couple of testimonies in there from a neighbor, Kirkwood, and there was issues with -- they were concerned about access to a back pasture or something. Can you address that? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, I would be happy to and I -- and yesterday our engineer was out meeting with them on site, so I think addressed their concerns on this, but as I understand that conversation they-- they do have access to Grayson Street, which is just to the north of their property, that that will provide that to our new local street and we are happy to install a gate in that fencing there for them to have access to their back pasture. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. That's it. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Nelson: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 37 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 35 of 59 Fitzgerald: Oh, one -- one more. Holland: I had one more question. So, I know we have got a challenge with the pathway mix up on the east side and this side. If at some point they decide they want to build a foot bridge across that canal there to connect the two pathways, I don't know if your group would be amenable to at least allowing an easement or some sort, so they could work out a bridge of -- Fitzgerald: Cross-access. Holland: -- some sort. A cross-access. Does that make sense what I'm asking? Nelson: Just try and make sure it connects. Holland: If the neighborhood to the east is developing the pathway along the south side of the canal and you are developing -- or you're leaving it open for an easement on the north part, there would probably have to be some sort of footbridge at some point to connect the two. Just making sure that we would be okay with having access to that if that was -- Fitzgerald: Or a box culvert. Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, I would be happy to address that and, you know, I can -- I will stand for correction, but we will be providing a publicly available 14 foot easement and so, obviously, they will be able to connect into that and without any objection or concern it will be available. You can see from the location of our lots we don't have access to that on the south side of the canal on our property, but if somebody else wanted to construct a pedestrian -- a bridge across and, then, connect into that easement path, you know, of course, that would be compatible with what we have got designed. Holland: Thank you. Fitzgerald: One more question. Because I know you guys were amenable to the east- west connection of the pathway on the lateral that's going in the middle of the neighborhood. Nelson: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: The five foot versus ten foot -- I know -- I understand that there this is -- you go out to pretty much nothing right now, but I don't -- that's still county and undeveloped in a lot of cases. Is there a concern with putting a ten foot pathway in toward -- since we are not doing anything to the north? I mean I know it's a cost thing, but it -- it's a two way -- maybe a give and take. Just make it -- make it so that we could have a pathway connection there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 38 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 36 of 59 Nelson: Chairman, that's a fair question. It's more than just cost though. It's really that that will eat up the green space and put a lot of pavement right through the middle of this amenity that we -- it -- I mean it just has a very aesthetically different appearance and -- particularly because this is truly a local amenity and, yes, there could be some future connectivity to the property immediately to our west and eventually to the school site, but no further. So, you don't need a lot of-- it's not a multi-use traffic situation with, you know, high use of bikes going back and forth, but it still would be available for that use, it still does provide that connectivity for, you know, school children to walk to school. So, I think the --the benefits would still be there with the connection that we have agreed to to extend it all the way to the property boundary, but to put in the size of pavement really eats up the green space. It would look really different in this area where that open water feature -- it's pretty attractive from just an aesthetic visual perspective. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just -- if I could just get clarification. So, the -- what staff is -- is requiring the ten foot pathway, that's going down the middle -- to the middle is the Nine Mile Creek, so we are talking about going through the middle there from the pickleball court diagonally to the southeast; is that correct? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, it would run along the southwest side of Nine Mile Creek, which does -- it's the creek that does run through the center and it would extend at this point, based on the staff's new conditions, all the way to the northwest and the southeast of the property and we have agreed to extend it. Cassinelli: Okay. And you are -- you're in agreement with extending it? Nelson: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. But not with the -- the width. Nelson: We just ask that it be a five foot paved width and an eight foot easement and that will fit there. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate the clarification. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. I'm letting you go. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 39 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 37 of 59 Seal: Just a quick question on the connectivity into the cul-de-sac. Is that going to be something that will be mod -- I mean the cul-de-sac will be modified to provide for access to that from bikes and rollerblades, skateboards, and such? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Seal, it looks to me -- and I'm sorry I don't have a more specific answer for you, other than by looking at the site plan that the cul-de-sac is right there on that common area and so, yes, we could provide a footpath right up to that pathway. I don't see why that -- it doesn't fit there. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Nelson: You're very welcome. Fitzgerald: And before we get a motion to close the public hearing we had one public -- piece of public testimony that didn't get uploaded on time into the system, so I know -- want to make sure everybody at the dais has read the letter from Mr. Palumbo and that it's in the record officially and we have all read it. Correct? Cassinelli: Yes. Fitzgerald: Thank you. So, make sure that we got that on record, because we have all read it and appreciated his comments. Seal: I got a couple questions for staff. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead. Seal: Just on the -- the path going from five foot -- or from ten foot to eight foot, is that -- is that a code requirement or is that just a recommendation? Allen: Chairman. Commissioner Seal, it is a recommendation from Parks Department. Seal: So, it can go from zero to however big they want to make it basically; correct? Allen: Five foot is the minimum requirement. Seal: Minimum requirement. Okay. Good to know that. And, then, as far as the Lot 1, Block 8, I'm -- the question out there, basically, seems to be that if you mark that lot as unbuildable does that deny them the right to make that into a park in the future? Allen: I -- Chairman, Commissioner Seal, I -- I would recommend that we label it as a common lot. I think that's the intent of the applicant. You could verify that with them. Based upon the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 40 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 38 of 59 Fitzgerald: That was my thought. Instead of an unbuildable lot they get a common lot. Allen: Yeah. Right. Seal: Thank you. Allen: Which would allow them to build a structure on it if they want, but -- just not a residential structure. Fitzgerald: Deborah, can you come up and put that on the record, please, Ma'am. I just want to make sure that we are not talking about making the -- the triangle up to the northeast an unbuildable lot, but a common lot that you can build a structure on, but just not a house. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, we are in complete agreement with that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. Nelson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Commissioner Seal? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Were you done? Okay. For staff. Sonya, are you -- is staff okay with their concept of the fencing? Allen: Staff is a little unsure what their fencing style is. I am a little -- as long as it complies with UDC standards adjacent to common areas and open space that's fine. Our open vision fencing is defined as a fence that does not restrict or impede vision or sight through the fence by more than 20 percent. So, I'm just concerned that their style with lattice on top might be closer together than that and more of a closed vision. So, staff is okay with just a provision saying meeting UDC standards. Fitzgerald: Meeting UDC standards. Okay. Allen: They are -- the reason for the condition was their description and their -- and their picture of their fence didn't match. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Additional thoughts or comments for -- or questions for staff? If not, can I get a motion to close public hearing? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on Item No. 4-C, Shelburne South, Item H-2019-0106. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 41 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 39 of 59 Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on the H-2019- 0106. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: It is properly before you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Everyone's speaking up. I will just go through the items that they requested in order. I think on the fencing I'm open to them doing an open vision lattice on the top with vinyl fencing, as long as it meets UDC standards. I think that's a reasonable request. Nine Mile Creek -- I think it's also a reasonable request to have a five foot pathway, instead of ten foot. I like ten foot pathways, but when it's -- the way that they laid it out here I -- I agree I would rather have the green space than have a bunch of basketball courts in the middle of their neighborhood. It's -- it's the common lot for the neighborhood and I would much rather have them have an extra five feet of playroom. I don't see any concerns with relocating the easement to Lot 1, Block 3, for the Freeman parcel access. I think it still makes sense as long as they have got access and that works with staff, I'm good with that, too. And, then, fine with Lot 1, Block 8, being renamed as a common lot. And I would also echo Commissioner Cassinelli's comment earlier about the picnic shelters, just making sure that the style would match the neighborhood. I think that's it that we talked about. Fitzgerald: I think it -- I agree with everything you just said. What-- I think it's a very nice looking project. I think the amenities are a nice package. I wish Boise and Ada county would have organized themselves a little better than -- in that neighborhood, but hopefully that will come to a conclusion in a positive way. But I think I'm in agreement with everything you just said. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: All in all I -- I really like the layout. I like the home styles in there. I like everything. I'm in full support of the five foot pathway along Nine Mile Creek. I --with the regional pathway just two blocks up at the corner there I don't think it's -- I don't think it's an issue. I would also like to -- depending on where we get -- recognize the -- make sure that they work with that neighbor, the Kirkwoods I think on their -- on their easement. Here is -- here is the issue I -- I have. It's an infrastructure thing and it's something beyond our control, but I think we need to look at it. ACHD does not require a traffic impact study with fewer than a hundred home sites. Shelburne number one, 48 home sites. No impact Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 42 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 40 of 59 study. Shelburne number two, 78. Shelburne East, 99. Shelburne South, 99. Not a single traffic impact study. A total of 300 and -- what I'm getting there is 324 homes with no traffic impact study. If you add in some of the neighboring subdivisions that also didn't have a traffic impact study, you go well over that. Yes, everything is going to be developed out, but it's not done yet. It -- one of the -- have to go pull up -- open up the ACHD report and see. I think it's on Cloverdale where the level of service was an F and if you read the national transportation study levels and see what level of F is, you will basically see it's gridlock and car's not moving. I can't in good conscience put my support behind this until the infrastructure is in place. I love the subdivision. I like everything about it and what we have talked about, but I have an issue with that and I -- it's -- it's something we have to look at, because it goes to the livability of the city when you can't get around and, again, it's not the developer's fault, it's not the city's fault, it's out of our control, but I think we have to -- we have to work within those limits. If -- if all the roads were developed as the -- as they are -- as they will be by -- I think on there about 2026, it would fit. But from that standpoint -- and I mean I -- I don't know if we can make a recommendation to deny it based on that, but if -- if it were looked at I think as one large development ACHD would have required a traffic impact study and remediations would have been put in place to make this happen, but because it's broken down in such small pieces, it -- it wasn't. But the problem is is once you put this all together you have -- you have that mess. Fitzgerald: I appreciate where you're coming from. The challenge I have is the way that the system is set up you are -- you are hurting the landowner and not the other way around and so I have a challenge with that, because I -- their -- if I'm a landowner I want to be able to develop in the manner -- way posited, they can't, and where the market needs or what the market demands. The way it works -- the system is set up that's -- that is -- it's out of our purview and the only way you build that up is to build more rooftops, because that's where taxes come from. So, unless we want to completely restructure how we are doing things, we can have this conversation across the board for every neighborhood that comes down the pipe and I think you are putting the weight of previous development and lack of infrastructure on the landowner and that's not fair. I think that's a very big burden for them to carry and it's -- it puts them at a disadvantage from people who have developed their property already. So, that's my opinion. I -- so, I completely disagree with where you are going, but I understand the sentiment, just not how you got there. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: While I certainly know all of our roads are -- we wish that our road systems would be developed ahead of development, we know it doesn't happen that way, so I think my comments and that is that some of these homes are developed in phases for a reason, so that they are not all there at the same time. So, you know, all the Shelburnes didn't come together at one point in time. I think that this -- this seems like an adequate phase of 99 homes and it's split into two phases that won't start construction until 2021 , Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 43 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 41 of 59 maybe 2022. 1 know cities work with ACHD on their priority lists every year and priorities get reevaluated and they get bumped up. If there is demand pressures from neighboring developments they -- they try to watch the comp plans for the cities to make sure that they plan for what the roadways need in the long term. So, I think I would agree with your comments, Chair, on not requiring a traffic study for this one development. But certainly requesting staff to work with ACHD on priorities for making sure that we keep our roads safe. Fitzgerald: And I -- yes, I totally agree with that. And that's -- I mean for future policy discussion, I have no problem with talking about it. If we are going to put an assemblage together when that is necessary and that's -- if that's the direction we want to go. It's hard to leave it on the last guy holding the bag, so -- additional thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I agree with what was stated earlier as far as, you know, essentially, the issues that are -- that are on the -- on the table. The traffic part of it, I mean traffic's a problem, so -- and by building we are adding to the problem and that -- that part is obvious. But I mean, like you said on a previous application, I mean rooftops help take care of that to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the -- or the rooftops go in and, then, traffic gets -- goes from bad to worse and, then, eventually it gets better. So, I live right in the middle of an area of town that is suffering badly because of this right now. So, I completely understand that viewpoint of it. That said, there is improvements that are funded that are coming that will address this and I'm not sure if we want to pass anything up to City Council that would recommend making it a bigger priority or working towards that end. I don't know that it would do much considering that it's in the next round of approved projects to basically go forward, but just on record traffic is a problem and -- and I don't know that we can be confined by it necessarily, other than -- I mean applicants that are building in that area, if the traffic's already really bad and you are looking at houses where you are having trouble just getting there, you may not want to buy there at this point, so, you know, the timeline for building here, starting in late 2021 or 2022, hopefully there is some road construction underway that's -- that looks like it's going to improve upon some of that. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- yeah. I totally get the traffic. I mean I live out past Ten Mile and Victory and we have spent months with those roads closed, because they have put in the sewer lines, only to come back and have the same two lanes there and I'm like why didn't they just open it up while it's closed, you know. But it takes the rooftops to do it. I get that, so -- I mean until the rooftops are there they are not -- I mean -- and everything goes by plan, so -- I do like the subdivision. I mean coming in at the density it does, I very much appreciate seeing that and I would echo the comments of Commissioner Holland before, I have no problem with the five foot pathway. The -- and my screen here has disappeared with all the asks of the applicant, but I was in agreement with those comments. So -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 44 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 42 of 59 yeah. Unfortunately, the roads are what they are, but I agree it's the rooftops that drive that to move up the agenda on those roads. So, I would be in support of what we have talked about here tonight. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I just wanted to make a -- just add onto what I was saying, that I get that it's outside of our purview and we can't do that. We are -- we are -- we are -- you know, we are kind of -- not left with a whole lot of choices on that and I understand. The -- the big issue I have is that there is -- because it's done in -- the way it's done, when I -- when I look at the numbers everything comes in below what's required for a traffic impact study, but as a whole it would sure as heck need one and there would be something required up front before this going in, but because it's developed -- and I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to tie the -- the -- the landowner's hands on that, but -- and everything's funded, I get it. Everything's funded and planned for -- for it to happen, it's just -- again, it's an infrastructure thing and that's -- that's my -- that's my concern. Fitzgerald: Maybe that's a policy discussion we need to have in one of our policy -- or our Council-P&Z meetings is when does that -- when there is a --when does that become a need is -- after you assemble so many things when do we need to have a traffic study that Shelburne 14 and they have all been, you know, '20, '20, '20, '20, '20, they add a thousand homes, we need to have an impact study somewhere in the middle or something. So, I get where you're going. I understand. But I -- you know, that's a policy discussion to -- I would hate to hamper the --the landowners that want to build in and add onto an HOA that takes good care of their property. That's the challenge. It's a balancing act. But I understand your sentiment. Traffic is an issue. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: One -- I had it written down, but I didn't make comment earlier, but I just want to comment on -- I'm happy to see that the layout of the subdivision -- I really like it. I like cul-de-sacs, so-- I mean they kind of accidentally--or on purpose had to architect around, you know, the -- that Nine Mile Canal that's there, but I think they did an exceptional job on it and instead of going for or trying to squeeze more things into less space, they left an appropriate amount or -- or more than what was needed for open space. So, I really like that about this subdivision and I think having that -- that pathway in there and connecting it -- especially with the cul-de-sacs in there and everything, that -- that this right here is something that appeals to me as having kids and -- and having families and things like that, just the ability for everybody to get around and, you know, have access to different parts of the neighborhood without having to go out on a busy street, I really like that about this subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 45 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 43 of 59 Fitzgerald: I totally agree. I think there is --the little buffers on -- along the streets -- sides and the interconnectivity is great. You guys did a nice job of designing it. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to throw a motion up and see what happens. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0106 for Shelburne South as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2020, with the following modifications: One, on fencing, that the applicant would be able to utilize open vision lattice vinyl fencing, as long as it's compliant and meets the UDC standards. Two. That the Nine Mile Creek -- they would add a pathway that goes all the way to the east and west, but that we would allow for a five foot pathway and an eight foot easement, instead of the ten foot pathway. That the access to the Freeman parcel, we would be willing to relocate the easement to Lot 1, Block 3, as presented by the applicant. That Lot 2, Block 8, would be designated as a common lot in the plat, so that in the future it could be utilized as a public space and that the applicant would consider alternate picnic shelter styles to match the neighborhood development and design. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. Any additional comments? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Cassinelli: Nay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, what I tried to say before is would you like yourself to be recognized on the record as having said no? Cassinelli: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here tonight. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Ascent Subdivision (H-2019-0122) by Schultz Development, Located on the North side of W. Franklin Rd., East of N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Annexation of 5.25 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 building lots and 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 46 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 44 of 59 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; and 3. Request: Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 72 dwelling units on 4.97 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Moving on to our last item on the docket. It's Item 4-D, Ascent Subdivision, file number H-2019-0122 and we will start with staff report from Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Chairman -- Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is an annexation and zoning, a preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit. This site consists of 4.97 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located on the north side of West Franklin Road, approximately a third of a mile east of North Black Cat Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. This property is surrounded by rural residential agricultural uses, zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium high density residential, which calls for eight to 15 units per acre and it is in the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Annexation of 5.25 acres of land with R-15 zoning is requested for the development of apartments at a gross density of 14.49 units per acre, consistent with the land uses and density desired in the medium high density residential future land use designated area. This application was submitted prior to the new Comprehensive Plan being adopted. Therefore, it was reviewed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. The Ten Mile interchange plan did not change with the recent revamp of the comp plan. So, just wanted to state that. a Preliminary plat is proposed consisting of nine building lots and five common lots on 4.97 acres of land. One two story multi-family structure consisting of eight units is proposed to be constructed on each lot. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family development consisting of 72 dwelling units in an R-15 district. While the use and density proposed is consistent with UDC and the medium high density residential future land use map designation, the design of the project is not consistent with the design policies in the Ten Mile interchange plan as follows -- and these are notated in detail with explanations in your staff report, so assuming you have read those, I'm not going to go through the whole -- the whole detail, but the -- it's not consistent with the following design policies. Street-oriented design of residential buildings. Buildings to scale. Neighborhood design. And that is the mixed use -- mixed housing stock, architecture and design streetscape and streets. Building form and character. Neighborhood residential and public art. They are lacking -- the design is lacking in all of those areas. The access is proposed from one access from Franklin Road and the plan on the left there is a copy of the site plan proposed by the applicant, as well as the open space. The open space is in accord with the minimum UDC standards, as is the site amenities. And these are the conceptual building elevations. The ones on the upper left are the clubhouse. The ones on the right are the multi-family structures. There are two different floor plans. One is for one bedroom units and one is for two bedroom units. There are no three bedroom units. And these are some photos of these same type of structures that are currently being constructed in Harper Ridge Subdivision and -- out by -- I think it's Silverstone area on Eagle Road. So, there was no written testimony on this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 47 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 45 of 59 application. The applicant is going to respond to the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit due to the design of the project not being consistent with the design policies in the Ten Mile plan. Staff is consequently recommending denial of the annexation, because we do not have a concept plan that is consistent with our Ten Mile plan and Comprehensive Plan. And, additionally, the preliminary plat for the same reasons. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Questions for Sonya? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Sonya, you mentioned that the application was submitted prior to the new comp plan being adopted. So, it was reviewed under the previous comp plan. Was there a different designation in the new comp plan for this area or was it supposed to still be the medium high density? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, it is the same designation. Holland: Thank you. Allen: The density has changed in the new comp plan, but this is consistent with the previous plan. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Allen: The main difference. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening, sir. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. It's a long walk with the recommendation for denial. I don't think it's as bad as it's portrayed and I appreciate staff-- as much work as they got going, too, to get it to this stage, where their conditions are on paper, they -- I think there is a lot of good things in here that I want to accentuate and also talk through some of the -- some of the reasons they think that they should recommend denial. My goal is if you -- if you notice at the end of the staff report they say it is your prerogative to ask for approval that it would be continued for two weeks to --to get some conditions, because we don't have any, really, to talk about-- conditions. And so my goal is to be able to talk through these issues and find out what's -- what's ultimately important for you as -- and hopefully you won't feel your hands are as tied as the staff did on recommending denial with some specific conditions, you know, of approval that we could come back in -- I don't know if it's two weeks potentially -- that's my goal is to get to that point tonight with you and get some feedback, neighbors, and see -- see where we are at and, then, we will go from there. So, I appreciate the opportunity to be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 48 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 46 of 59 here. I have been working in the area now on Franklin Road since 2006, working on the Baraya project across the street. We were original stakeholders, if you will, in the Ten Mile specific area plan. It was done between 2006 and 2007. 1 know I'm showing my age. But it's been a while. What's that math? Thirteen years. Still working on the project Baraya, wrapping it up. That one consisted of 94 acres, 334 units of R-8 and R-15, attached alleys, detached alleys, standard -- standard front stuff, at 67 acres laid out at about six -- five to the acre. Excuse me. And there was some R-40 that had some apartments, 16 and 24 unit apartments, that laid out at about 20 to the acre. Overall it was six to the acre on the 94 acres. But we had a 94 acre blank slate to be able to incorporate a lot of different mixes of alleys and this and that and it's room. With this five acre site -- or, excuse me, 4.97 it's important to dabble in those fractions sometimes. Not that we are relying on that for anything tonight, but it is a small site and so there are -- we are constrained in how we accomplish some of those things and staff thinks are in -- there are absolutes in the Ten Mile specific plan and my assertion is that they are not absolutes. This isn't a square peg in a round hole, there is -- there is a couple different holes that can be filled here. This is one of the -- one part of the diversity that's out here. What we are proposing on the site -- and I'm going to start with some low hanging issues as far as annexation. First of all in the zoning is that this has been master planned R-15, medium high density, since 2007 and it has not changed in that regard. This area -- the whole Ten Mile area specific plan, which I -- I don't know the exact acreage. Was it 1,500 acres? Was it 1,200 acres? It's a pretty big area, you know, on the east side of Ten Mile, west of Ten Mile, up to the railroad tracks and down to the highway, across the highway, some of that area down there is in it as well. So, it's -- it's probably about 1 ,500 acres or so let's just say, of which we were five of that. It was important -- I know that there was some density proposed in that. Put your -- put your -- for lack of a better word -- density where --where your services are, where your arterials are, where your proximity is to the freeway and future employment nodes, commercial nodes, and we need that. We are -- I think we are a half mile down to the Ten Mile and another less than -- you know, probably three quarters down to the interchange and you're on the interstate. Franklin has been widened to five lanes and when you wait long enough things get widened. It's amazing. So, it's five lanes. There is a bypass. There is sidewalk on both sides. So, I mean all those improvements on Franklin are in and done. We are not waiting for 2025, you know, it's done. So, it's imminently developable. It's imminently annexable from the south. We don't touch the apartments, they are just east -- east of us. But we do touch across the street to Baraya. So, the services are there. The infrastructure is there. The zoning is right for this in R-15. When we first looked at the site it was brought to me by a residential builder -- not the one across the street -- to say, hey, Matt, what do you think, should we do some townhomes and some patios, some cute little stuff. Let me look at it. So, I did a layout and came and met with staff. It was about six, seven to the acre and they just say, hey, Matt, our target's closer to 12 plus. Okay. So, that guy was not interested, but I had another guy that was looking at a hard site that was going to be a really difficult site to do multi-family in north Meridian and partnered him up with the guy who has done Harper Ridge, which was approved two years ago at P&Z and City Council. There is -- by Citibank. Between Citibank and Sutherland Farm. Great product. Contemporary style. It's a two year old -- you know, updated style for multi-family that we did. Pretty low intensity in terms of density. On Harper Ridge it laid out at 12, so I thought it would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 49 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 47 of 59 be a perfect fit in terms of density. In this case it laid out closer to 14, because of efficiencies, but it wasn't because of anything other than it was a little more efficient geometry and layout and all that, so it came in with a higher -- it wasn't our goal to get dense, it's just what worked on this particular site. We think it's a good design. Architecture. We think that it fits. We have double the required open space. We exceed the amenities. We got our accesses all approved through ACHD. We have got a little bit of a -- I mean I think it's a difference of opinion on -- on the Ten Mile area specific plan on what it says and what's allowed and what some exceptions might be. So, in this case staff has indicated in some -- in some brief conversations that, you know, we don't want parking lots, you know, drive aisles are just not acceptable in the Ten Mile area specific plan, which is a core difference in opinion we have, knowing that we did Baraya apartments with drive aisles and carports and one -- there is another one in the area that has even -- even the Ten Mile Lofts has drive aisles and carports. So, I don't think that's specifically excluded in the Ten Mile plan, that you can do -- can't do drive aisles with carports. But we are limited in terms of -- we don't have a road on one side and a road on the other, because, like I said, we are only five acres, we are limited connecting to the -- to the west. That's a private drive. Nothing to the east. Nothing to the north. We do have an arterial there, so we are kind of hemmed in on what we can do geometrically to get alley loads and -- and things like that. So, what we have is something we think that fits. We think that there is some -- we might use it to go through some of the staff conditions that -- and kind of talk as best I can to -- like I said, not the R-15, not the annexation, which staff has indicated they support, but since they don't approve this, so just throw it all away and I don't think it's worth -- worth doing that. So, where we stand is -- there is some talk about -- and I highlighted some stuff today. We got the report yesterday and -- that this site is pedestrian friendly. They seemed to say in the report that it wasn't, you know. We do have sidewalks throughout and a few more sections see we could add -- those few stubs, you know, east and west and north for future connectivity that we could do really easily and add that in there. There are sidewalks -- seven foot sidewalks throughout. There is good connectivity. So, we disagree with that. We also disagree with the drive aisles not being allowed. I think there is a parsing of definitions that's happened somehow, that a drive aisles is the same as a driveway. I don't know how it happened, but somehow it did in the staff report. So -- put my glasses on. Talking about porches, street oriented designed residential buildings. It says porches should be located along at least 30 percent of the front facade and with these multi- families, as you know, we don't necessarily have porches per se, we have balconies -- private balconies typically with stacked multi-family. It says this design element is intended to strengthen the social street life and pedestrian focus of the development and that may be true and it may be very important to you. I don't think that we -- we detract from it -- from this design. For some reason they think this detracts from it, because we don't have porches, which would be tough to do in a stacked multi-family. The building to scale. It says with parking lots around the buildings, a lack of internal streets and pedestrian ways and we think we have plenty of internal drives and pedestrian ways. This is generally an auto dominated development that -- at the human scale, but is not consistent with the plan. I don't know if that's true. I don't think having this distorts the human scale. There is -- there is some verbiage from 2007 in that -- in that plan that's causing some hang-ups that I'm not quite understanding. Having 13 years of experience Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 50 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 48 of 59 working on the Ten Mile plan in the city that I think they are trying -- they are trying to apply some -- maybe some single family standards as well to this multi-family and there is some -- some cross-conditions going on here. As far as -- it says front porches and garages access from alley are usually -- usually the standard in residential areas. It doesn't say anything about multi-family versus single family, it says residential. And parking is primarily located behind buildings. I think in general we have tried to put our buildings on the outside and our parking on the inside, so from a higher level looking at it we don't have parking right off of -- in our perimeter so it's visible from Franklin. It's very well -- it's inside. So, I think we have, with our site design, tried to flip that. It would be really easy to put it on the parameter, but we did not, we put it in the interior to de- emphasize and as you know we have strict parking standards, two per -- two per unit, which is what we have. Again, it talks about us not having parkways and -- and internal connectivity and we do. Each one of these buildings does have a stairwell -- two stairwells. Each one of the openings has two downs and two ups. Two downs and two ups. And the balconies are on what -- I guess you would say the back. We think that's a good privacy thing. There is a potential we could put them in the front and we totally would redesign the building. We like the privacy of it and, again, for such a small site -- and if we did have the flexibility of having more roads and things like that, you could beat that. But we think that this site should allow that. There is something about street footage -- frontage, about 18 to 24 inch above sidewalk grade in the front and you just don't do that with multi-family. ADA -- if you jumped up two feet from your backage to your building. Community and single family with some steps. You know, with multi-family you can't. So, like I said, I think there is some cross-conditions going on here between multi- family and single family that are just -- I mean put in there and say you don't meet it. Denied. Unfortunately. Public art, I'm sorry, I didn't know that we were required to have public art here. The way I read your conditions -- one of the amenities is public art, but a pool trumps that and we got a pool, a hot tub, really nice sitting area and great amenities in this thing, but we can put some public art in there if we need to. Fitzgerald: So, Matt, can you wrap it up, my friend. Schultz: I got two minutes I thought. Fitzgerald: Okay. I will say -- Schultz: I'm getting there. Fitzgerald: -- my timer is getting ready to go off. I was just -- if yours is different than mine -- Schultz: Mine says 2.10. Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: Mine says 2:10. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 51 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 49 of 59 Fitzgerald: I don't see mine, so -- Schultz: There you go. We are getting close. I know. Fitzgerald: Okay. I was just making sure we are on the same page. Schultz: I promise. I promise. Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: It does say the Ten Mile area plan requires residential streets or alleys to be rated for access to dwellings within the development. It says only drive aisles are proposed with parking on each side. That's -- that's a driveway. It is how we access these kind of developments. Easy comments. Somehow there is a detailed out chain link on the -- on the trash enclosures and about the setbacks. All the property management office and storage and mailbox, we could do a betterjob of highlighting that in the community center. And, like I said, we exceed the common area open space. We hit the density targets. We have got great consultants to help us through this process and we think it's a little bit unfair the condition of denial. We hope that you would maybe not be so strict. We respect that if you are you would allow some flexibility, given the small size and geometry and access, that we are providing a good, diverse, different, contemporary -- is the proper term and I think modern, but contemporary design that wasn't contemplated 15 years ago when --when the plan was done. Very high level. So, we are not asking you to ignore the Ten Mile plan, we are just asking you to acknowledge that there is different ways to get the diversity and some of the other -- the bigger goals in the Ten Mile plan than getting down and saying you can't do drive aisles for multi- family. So, with that we acknowledge it's not an ideal situation, but we would ask that you see how it goes and I will -- I will leave the rest of my comments for rebuttal. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant currently? We appreciate it, sir. Thank you. Madam Clerk, are we in the same situation? Weatherly: That's correct, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Excuse me. Is there anyone who would like to testify on this application? Show of hands. Anyone? Or we just hang out. Okay. Matt, do you want to -- do you have any additional thoughts? I don't think anybody is here to testify, so -- so, I'm going to ask you just give me the straight rundown, because I think my concern the way we got into is -- like you guys need to go back, we need to continue, you guys go back to the planning board, that's what my -- my gut is telling me, but I would love to -- like walk me through your bullet points of where we are -- what are the concerns you come across. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioner-- Commissioner-- or Chairman and Commissioners. We believe that you do have the flexibility to recommend approval with specific conditions, that we -- we extend the connections to the parameter, that we, you know, add details to the site plan that -- based on the fact that we do exceed the open space. We have great Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 52 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 50 of 59 architecture that works. We are hitting density targets, which is important. You know, I -- you know, it's not density for density sake. It is important that -- in these areas that are specifically planned to be R-15 that we are not doing six to the acre stuff and it's pretty -- pretty rare that I get to deal with stuff like that -- usually fighting over three and a half versus three or something like that, but this is one of those areas where it's important that we do it and these other standards they are trying to apply seem to be steering towards a three story garage underneath. Could be single family with zero lot lines, but it could be multi-family depending how they did it. I think next door-- the scenario in that was not the intent that the whole Ten Mile plan had that product. it's just not and I know it wasn't. I was involved in it. So, I think there is some very overly -- and then a finding to be an overly strict interpretation of what's in that plan, but I think there is some misinterpretations of some of those things. So, I think it's a very good project. It should be approved. If there is some conditions -- like moving the balconies from the back to the front that would change it for you, great. But we don't have the geometry and size to do a road down the middle, with lots on both sides, with alleys in the back, with more lots, with open space, with more alley loaded lots, with alleys -- I mean the geometry is required. It transcends this. Any five acre portion throughout the community of the Ten Mile plan is not going to have all those features. It just isn't. You take any five acre snapshot. We just happen to be a five acre portion of this. So, it's like the argument of mixed use, that all mixed use parcels must be all mixed use and that's not it. I mean you have a parcel in a mixed use designation, you might be all residential and it might be all commercial over there and within the overall thing it's mixed use. So, it's kind of the same -- same thought process, you know, and so in that regard we are not asking you to totally disregard the Ten Mile plan, we think we meet a lot of those things that are in the Ten Mile plan and so I leave it with you. We don't -- there is no planning to go back to. You're it. We would ask that we do it a two week, if that's what it is, a continuance. If that's what it would be, that we could show you these revisions, short of throwing the whole thing away and starting over without drive aisles. That's kind of where we got to draw the line. So, if it's your -- if it's your indication that you are going to say, hey, you need to get rid of all the drive aisles and do alleys and fronting on roads and get six or seven to the acre with some, you know, single -- multi-family, then, this will be it, you know, that we would respect that, but if you can work with us, we can make all these revisions -- we just don't want to waste everybody's time. At the same time we feel strongly that these drive aisles and the way we have oriented our buildings is the right way to do it. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair. Matt, you -- you are very familiar, then, with the Ten Mile interchange -- change plan if you have worked on it from '06, '07. Did you -- when you were -- when you were -- when you were planning this out did you -- did you -- did you think about a lot of those issues and try and incorporate them? Schultz: Yes or no. We had done -- we have done across the street, in the Ten Mile interchange plan a multi-family development with 16, which would be two of these connected, and to go to a third story would be 24 -- you know, would go up higher. So, during that process there were some -- because it was multi-family some exceptions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 53 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 51 of 59 given. There were some considerations given for multi-family and that was totally okay under how that was done. How -- how the lots were done and how other multi-family was done. But all of a sudden things have really gotten real literal on -- on some verbiage in there that it's not dimensional specific. It's -- it's a little vague that-- on previous site plans it was interpreted as this -- this is okay. So, we didn't ignore it, but at the same time we just want to acknowledge that we think that the bigger points that it meets outweigh some of these -- these finer points that they are trying to be applied carte blanche across all developments all of a sudden, whether they be multi-family or single family is all. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair. Matt, just looking at this parcel, I think one of the challenges, you know, to your project is just that it's -- it's a little bit isolated with what's around it at the moment, so that's always a challenge when you're looking at a piece that's not quite an in-fill project, but about the size of an in-fill project. Did you have any conversations with some of the surrounding neighbors about the project? What were some of the comments that came back from those -- Schultz: Our neighbor to the east on Franklin who owns that home that's right on Franklin, they just bought it last year. He runs a business out of it. He just -- man, we just thought that would be a field, you know, we had no idea there would be a development going. That was about it. We did ask the gentleman, you know, on Zimmerman Lane if he would willing to kind of work with us on a shared access or something like that. He was -- he was not interested in coordinating with any kind of development and that was just his prerogative on that. So, beyond that Mr. Zimmerman kind of owned the bigger parcel north of us and, then, there is some smaller acres around us that they didn't really seem to have any issues one way or the other, other than just do a nice development, which this is. You know, we consider this more of the upper end and nice finishes, nice amenities for such a small project. We are only 72 apartments. I say only. There is 250 and 300s around this. And so some of the larger -- most of the Ten Mile plan is large parcels. Most of its 80s, 94s, 118, you know, 300s. And so there is a few of these smaller ones -- to incorporate all those things in one are a challenge. It's a lot easier when you have an 80 acre blank slate to throw in all these roads and alleys and get the frontage as you need than in a five acre site. It's like you guys give waivers on open space and amenities on sites that are under five acres. In this case we didn't ask for it. You know, we would have hit it even if it was required. We didn't ask you that waiver on that. You know, we are asking for a waiver on some of those street frontage requirements that are coming out. Holland: So, follow up. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Holland: Again, I think the challenge is just that you are -- you are kind of an isolated parcel. There has been a lot of development happening along Franklin between Ten Mile and Black Cat. Certainly some higher density projects that are coming in there -- I mean Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 54 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 52 of 59 we can't control what order projects come into us necessarily, but my worry with this five acre parcel is because it's -- it's -- it's about the size of an in-fill parcel. It might restrict how the rest of it develops around it someday when it redevelops, because it likely will at some point. So, I think one of my other concerns would be how cross-access would work with neighboring parcels. By itself, if it was a five acre in-fill parcel, zoned for high density housing, I don't see a lot of concerns with the layout. I mean it's -- it looks like a standard multi-family development. I appreciate that there is a clubhouse and a pool. It's a nice amenity to have. But I certainly see where staff's coming from of wanting to have more of the cohesive feel, because it's part of the Ten Mile area. I don't know that I have a question with that. Just making a couple of comments to you and seeing if you had any feedback. One other thought for you, too. Just looking at this -- and, obviously, I don't have the ability to manipulate your plan, but if you were to potentially flip some of those horizontal parcels vertical and maybe put the grassy area in the center, so you could kind of have those balconies facing open into an open area, perhaps that would help your plan look a little bit more cohesive with what the Ten Mile area is asking for and put your parking around the outside, that might be an option to consider. Schultz: That's what we avoided. Holland: Just throwing out a couple thoughts. Schultz: That's what we avoided initially to kind of make it not visible from -- from kind of internal and so we avoided that right off the bat and we put it internal, not external, for the look -- how that looks from the road. As far as how the properties to the north might redevelop, right about here where my cursor is going is where that Entrada Subdivision is and they have got a public road that goes right here. It goes right to the property line. So, they do have access here and they may, you know, have access out the other way. Not sure ACHD is going to allow that to be a public road in the future, because it's an offset that's going -- not only to us, but there some other public road offsets, they don't need an arterial, it's too close. And so it is able to develop. If there -- if we were to totally redevelop -- we are okay with the cross-access easements. I'm not sure what that would look like in the future like you and how that would connect if it were to -- you know, to have it there just in case if they want to connect in and site everyone as a redevelop and just extend two more buildings in here. They could very easily without having to take future access onto the Franklin Road and so that's something that needs to get on the plat if it moves forward, that we would put that in there, so -- Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thanks, Matt. We appreciate it. Schultz: Thanks. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Hold on one second. Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 55 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 53 of 59 Cassinelli: I have a couple questions for staff-- I guess maybe before we close the public hearing. Sonya, did the -- I'm confused I guess on the -- on the density between the new plan and the old plan. Did it change on this parcel or not? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, the -- in the city range -- the future land use map designation of medium high density residential changed. So, the new plan calls for eight to 12 units per acre and the previous plan was eight to 15 units per acre. The proposed plan is consistent with the previous plan, which is what is governed -- their development is governed by. Cassinelli: Okay. And then -- thank you. And, then, the second question, the -- pull something back up here. The development to Franklin, so -- is that the name of it there? Just to the east. Does that -- how does that fit with --with a lot of the Ten Mile interchange specific plans and what's being required here? Allen: Are you referencing the Entrada Farms development to the east on Franklin? Cassinelli: Is the Franklin and Ten Mile the one -- the -- the development that already exists? Fitzgerald: In the downturn. That was way before -- it was like in '05 or '04. Allen: Yeah. We have got -- we have got some developments out there that started before our Ten Mile plan was adopted and I think you are referring to -- it came through the process as Silver Oaks and Avondale and -- or three different names. I think it was before the -- they had concept plans that were in their development agreement and, then, Baraya -- I'm not sure. It was right there. I'm not sure if it was before the Ten Mile plan was adopted or not. Cassinelli: Okay. I was just -- I was curious on those. Allen: But it's really important going forward that if we are going to have this Ten Mile plan, that development is consistent with that plan. Either that or the Council needs to go back and make some modifications to it. Cassinelli: Sure. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Hey, Matt, one second. I'm going to let this gentleman in the back comment and, then, let you close. Sir, thanks for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record. Echavarria: Andrew Echavarria. 4110 West Franklin Road. I own the property to the east there. The acre. I mean I'm -- I'm against it, obviously. I like not having neighbors. But, of course, it is what it is. The only thing I would ask is -- I mean, obviously, they are going to have a big privacy fence there or something. I would ask for like more trees for like privacy, you know, with these two story buildings. I don't want people looking over Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 56 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 54 of 59 my yard at my kids, things like that, you know. I mean it is what it is. I'm against it. But I just kind of wanted to say that. Fitzgerald: We will have him address that on the fencing for you guys when he comes back up. Echavarria: Okay. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Matt. Schultz: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Cassinelli. Yeah, the -- the Ten Mile -- Baraya was definitely part of the Ten Mile plan. We waited a year to get going on it. Be patient and we worked through that and our plan exactly conformed to it and -- and I know the Ten Mile Lofts project that Brighton did was part of that Ten Mile plan as well and they both have drive aisles and carports for multi-family. They are part of the Ten Mile plan. And so they are -- and there is some other stuff on the south side of the freeway as well that has drive aisles and carports and this is -- this is a -- I don't resent it, but I'm a little disappointed. This is portrayed as being inconsistent. This is not. You know, there is an interpretation that is not right now, that's -- that's new, in my opinion, but that's just kind of how things are right now. So, I get it and if you guys can't move it on with some specific conditions we respect that and we didn't want to just steamroll this by you and say, hey, we don't care, if you guys deny it, we are going to take it to Council and take our chances there, because we want to -- we respect whatever you guys decide, so thank you. Fitzgerald: Can you address the neighbor's -- in regards to -- Schultz: I apologize. I apologize. That's an easy thing for us to do as far as a few extra trees. I mean it shocked me when Sonya said there was only, you know, a handful of trees required on this thing and we exceeded it by like 70 or something. We went wow. I didn't realize that. So, we just -- doing a few extra trees is not a big deal along that common property line there and the six foot solid fence is definitely what we had planned along there, so -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for the applicant? Thanks, Matt. Sir, that -- I appreciate it. Thank you. And do we have a -- Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Before we -- before we close if -- I think you brought up the possibility of continuing. Do you want to bring Matt back up and see if -- if they want to talk about that before we close it? Fitzgerald: I absolutely -- if that's the will of the Commission I'm happy to have that conversation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 57 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 55 of 59 Cassinelli: I guess just to get some of that -- if there is a -- it didn't sound like it, but if we want to go down that road before we close it, to have to reopen it. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think the comment Matt made earlier was that his hope would be that we would continue it, so that we could get approval of conditions from staff and have it come back to us again. That was what his first request was. Allen: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Sonya, go ahead. Allen: If I could respond just for the record. Staff did meet with the applicant a couple days ago and discussed the issues, the inconsistencies with the plan. I did recommend that they continue at that point. We talked about different ways they could revise their plan to meet the design policies in the Ten Mile plan. At that time the applicant wasn't interested in doing a redesign, they wanted to stick with that product type, and so that's why staff went forward with the recommendation of denial. As you know, this -- this staff member rarely recommends denial. I try to get their condition wise if at all possible. In fact, I had a staff report written for approval with -- when I started to write conditions and the layout and the building types are just -- they are just a different product type that isn't -- isn't consistent with this area plan. So, there is -- there is really no way to condition this for these types of structures and this type of design. So, anyway, I will let the applicant respond to your question, but I just wanted to give that information. Fitzgerald: Matt, do you have a response, because I have the same concern. I'm getting -- I feel like I need you -- because we are not -- it feels like we are not finished or something's not -- we don't have the full package in our minds right now. Schultz: And I appreciate the chance to talk before you guys close it and it gets awkward if you want to say some more stuff as you guys are discussing things and I do appreciate leaving it open, letting me talk one more time. But visiting with staff there were some very unclear ways that we could fix this thing. Like we don't want to see the parking. We want you use a -- do a spine road with, alley loads, and we did a concept of what that looks like. You get about 30 lots of something that looks not very good. It doesn't have the full area for amenities and it just -- it doesn't hit your target densities. It's not -- it's -- it's more of an attached single family. All those conditions, like I said, are more -- were driven towards an attached single family and multi-family condition. So, I think there is some misinterpretation and so we weren't given any easy ways to change this. We are not seeing any way to throw away the drive aisle concept, the carports, like has been done in a couple other projects and some other plan, so -- so, short of throwing away that -- we don't want to throw away the drive aisles. If you think it's important we throw away the drive aisles and start all over, you may as well concur with staff. But if you are willing to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 58 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 56 of 59 kind of, you know, put on the record that you are okay with it and move on some -- with addressing the other conditions and, then, we can do that. But I don't want to waste your time or our time to just delay those three weeks and just come back and still be in the same spot on that particular issue. I -- there is just not a good way to like I -- I'm on the record why. Thanks. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff before we close the public hearing? Or not. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think the two options in front of us right now -- we couldn't offer approval, because they don't have conditions of approval. So, the two options we have are to continue the application or to recommend denial. So, I think it would be my vote that we keep it open while we deliberate in case we want to continue. Fitzgerald: Sounds good. Holland: And, then, if we decide we want to recommend denial we could close the public hearing at that point. Fitzgerald: I'm fine with that. That's what we will do. You want to take a shot at making any comment or you want me to lead off? Mr. Chair, I think I -- I made some comments for the applicant. I think it's a -- it's a tough parcel, because it -- to me it's -- it looks like an in-fill development that's not in an in-fill location. So, I don't mind the layout of the multi-family project. I think overall it -- it looks like a standard apartment complex and it's got a nice pool and clubhouse amenity, which I appreciate, but I certainly see where staff's coming from where there is a lot of asphalt and it doesn't have the interconnectivity that they are hoping for with the Ten Mile area, because we want to see more pedestrian activity where people can ride their bikes to the Ten Mile center where there are lots of employment happening and we want to see more interconnectivity and bus routes and those kind of things. So, it's a challenging piece. I wish that it was this piece and the piece to the north and to the piece to the east, that we are looking at a more cohesive parcel. That's what I'm struggling with. So, I -- I think I'm siding with staff on -- on the conditions that I think if we were to continue it -- I don't think it sounds like they are interested in changing anything, really, with the product type, so we are going to probably come back to the same spot we are at where there is going to be some conditions that they may not want to move forward with. So, we are going to kind of do a chicken and egg scenario if we extend it out another two weeks. I don't think we going to get too many changes, except more work for staff to -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 59 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 57 of 59 Holland: -- put together -- together some conditions. So, I'm struggling, because I -- I certainly feel for the developer. I think it's a nice laid out concept. If I could pick it up and move it somewhere else I would, but I think it's just a challenging piece. That's what my starting thoughts are. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I would tend to agree. I mean in the couple of years we have worked on that Comprehensive Plan -- and I know -- and the years that they have been working on the Ten Mile interchange project and what's supposed to go out here, I think, you know, that was labeled one of our biggest opportunities is this area is to make it what it can be and I agree, I -- I like the overall design -- exactly what Commissioner Holland said. If you could pick it up and move it somewhere else, because it just -- it's really land locking all the development that goes around it, because there is no opportunity for interconnectivity on this the way it's laid out. I mean there is -- it's -- it's just not the appropriate time I think on this exact layout. I mean if there is something else that can go in there that can be connected with what's to come in the future -- because you know it's coming. I just -- I think it would be unfortunate to have a little piece right in the middle of all of this -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: -- that cannot be connected in the future. Fitzgerald: I -- I'm struggling, too, because I -- I appreciate wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I -- and I know this product works in other places and it's not a bad looking product. I -- I think the hope was to do something more, whether it is three story and parking underneath it. I -- I mean -- but I think the interconnectivity is -- is an important piece. Not the same thing we have done in other areas and I think that's the challenge. I feel like there is -- it's not finished or something. There is a piece that's missing for some reason in my mind. Maybe it's the interconnectivity. Maybe it's something else. But it's just not -- it doesn't seem finalized. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Mr. Chair, I agree. I mean it's -- it's a tough piece and I mean knowing that the roads are improved, you know, you have something like the density is right for the area and there is the layout is -- is incredibly hard. I mean it's -- it kind of has that -- it's a parking lot with houses built around it, instead of the ability to connect into other things, so -- and for this piece exactly where it is, just isn't -- I just don't see that it's going to fit in -- in that layout essentially, so in -- I mean the applicant is correct, I mean it's -- it's a small piece of land, so trying to do something else with it that makes it fit that is going to be incredibly difficult to do and I don't think a continuance is going to help us much here. I mean, number one, we are probably not going to be able to get--get it done in two weeks. I don't think there is any room on the schedule in two weeks, unless I'm reading the wrong Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 60 of 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission January 16,2020 Page 58 of 59 thing, but it's probably going to go out longer than that and I agree with Commissioner Holland, we are just going to probably end up right back in the same place. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: There is not a whole lot to add there. So, do we need to close this? All right. Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing H-2019-0122, Ascent Subdivision. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0122. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Is there a follow-on motion, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, I move -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2019-0122 as presented during the hearing on January 16th, 2020, for the following reasons to -- it doesn't comply with the Ten Mile interchange. Holland: Ten Mile plan. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion a second to recommend denial for file H-2019-0122, Ascent Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion for denial is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Need one more motion, team. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of January 16th, 2020. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. We are adjourned. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 6,2020— Page 61 of 94 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16 , 2020 Page 59 of 59 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8 : 46 P . M . (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS . ) APPROVE roll N GERALD eHArRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTES PQOaASED AUt;�sr' VO CHR S N ON - - 1 LERK r Chyor a E IDIAN IDANO z� SEAL Of the TREPSJ��,P