June 2, 2005 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 7 of 117
Borup: Question on that. The way I see it worded, it just says that they are to contact
Bill Gregory and haven't they done that? So, it's happened.
Rohm: That--
Borup: Yeah.
Rohm: And so we don't need to remove it or --
Borup: Well, I -- unless staff has another comment, but --
Wilson: . Staff would agree that that does not need to be removed. The conditions --
and they are kind of -- their comments, they will become conditions of approval with the
findings. You know, the commenting agencies do provide those comments.
Rohm: We don't need to remove it. End of motion.
Wilson: Yeah.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: It's satisfied anyhow. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: AZ 05-007 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of
Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: PP 05-009 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on
43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South
Locust Grove Road
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: CUP 05-008 Request for
a Planned Development consisting of 166 residential units with reductions
to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and yard
setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development,
LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: Okay. I'd like to open the next Public Hearing for AZ 05-007, a request for
annexation and zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-4 -- I'm sorry. From RUT to R-8
zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision. Also reopen -- I'm sorry, I was reopening a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 8 of 117
continued hearing on that one and I will also reopen the continued Public Hearing on PP
05-009, request for preliminary plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on
43.18 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision and also reopen
continued Public Hearing CUP 05-008, request for a planned development consisting of
166 residential units, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street
frontage, and yard setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision. All of these by Gemstar
Development, LLC, and located north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove
Road. And we will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This for 166
residential lots in an R-8 zone. The site plan here shows that this is Locust Grove Road
and Amity Road. The Ten Mile Creek, actually, bisects the property from approximately
northwest to southeast and it splits this into two distinct areas. As you can see by the
aerial photo, this is a major canal system through here. This is the Ridenbaugh. And
the Ten Mile Creek goes underneath the Ridenbaugh in that area. The triangular-
shaped piece right north of here is, actually, owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District and they do have a weir master's house, I guess is the way that the gentleman
presented it to me, that they maintain the actual ownership of the Ten Mile Creek to the
property boundary of the southeast corner, as well as through the Ridenbaugh Canal
area. The request here is for a planned development as well. The planned
development has reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks, and street frontage. The street
frontage reduced setbacks is mainly the area right in -- where I'm showing here, listed
as Block 3, which is a narrower lot, they are the 31-foot lots, approximately 4,100
square feet. The amenities that go along with the planned development would be the
trail system that the applicant has proposed that would go from Locust Grove Road to
the common lot area against the Ten Mile Creek in the southeast corner and that also
follows this Wrightwood Lane into the bridge in this location. This is the second
drawing, dated April 26, which is the second submittal to this application, due the
applicant trying to meet staff's comments on the first round when we were scheduled to
hear this on March 17th. The other amenity, I guess, to clarify, is that there is an open
space lot approximately right here where there is an existing home. The applicant has
indicated that the home will be remodeled and constructed as a clubhouse for these
lots. The clubhouse -- we haven't seen a design or a layout -- a floor layout of what
actually would go into a clubhouse. I discussed that with the applicant this afternoon
and they would definitely have something before Council, if it is -- the recommendation
follows. It's a little larger lot size here that -- the second issue I want to bring up is that
is a split area for low density and medium density residential. The low density is,
actually, just a small corner right down in here and that actual density comes in under
three dwelling units to the acre when calculated by acreage. That is immediately north
of an open space lot right up against Locust Grove and the Ridenbaugh Canal. The
large aerial photo shows the first of two significant features, is that there is a major
portion of this property is in the flood plane along the Ten Mile Creek. There are
approximately three impoundments here. The first one at the corner, another here, and
I believe the third one is right there where there are existing culverts that are in the Ten
Mile Creek. They are placed most likely for agricultural uses in the past. The
applicant's letter from Paul Coonts, who is the geo tech engineer, states that a letter of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 9 of 117
map revision, which goes to FEMA, needs to be filed for this area and if that letter is
filed and those culverts are removed and replaced with the existing bridge location,
which would be approximately where the second culvert is, then, the flood plane should
be contained within the banks of the Ten Mile Creek and within the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District's property. This aerial photo does show the property line of the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District along the Ten Mile Creek. The second feature of
concern is high groundwater in this area. The Public Works Department has requested
an additional condition on this site in order to try and address those -- that concern. I
guess I will keep going with the presentation here and, then, I will address that here
shortly. This is the Ridenbaugh Canal at this location. This picture was taken from
Locust Grove Road. This is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation home back in this location --
in that area and the home to be remodeled is where the trees are in that location. The
major feature on the Ridenbaugh of concern is the weir that actually separates the Ten
Mile Creek and the Ridenbaugh, which is where the trees are located here. I'll have a
better picture shortly. This is the -- where the future is in the foreground here and it is a
fairly gently sloping area towards the Ten Mile Creek. And just a point of reference, this
is the location where the highest groundwater was identified for the site. The second
picture, just as I -- before I got rained on -- was taken almost at the intersection of the
Ten Mile and the Ridenbaugh. This is the edge of the concreted area along the
Ridenbaugh and the rest of this naturally maintained vegetation through there. I
apologize for the darkness of the photo. This is the weir that we are -- that I have
discussed twice now. This is the Ten Mile Creek and, then, at the bottom under that --
the actual Ridenbaugh Canal is a swiftly flowing feature right through the middle of this
and, then, it immediately goes out to this area right here and that is the future concern.
There is a letter of -- addressing this by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in the file.
This location is showing the western portion -- or the eastern portion, I apologize -- of
the site, which is, again, very gently sloping. These are trees that are located in the
drainage way along the Ridenbaugh Canal, slightly west -- or slightly east of the site. Of
this -- these -- this area has two special concerns and the Chapter 5-A-2, page 30, of
the Comprehensive Plan does pull these out as areas that should be developed to
guide development to minimize the expense and inconvenience to individual property
owners and general public. The uses permitted in this district generally are associated
with open space and recreational. That is a bridge from the entire section, but gives
you the general purpose of what the hazardous areas state. Staff did discuss this with
the applicant many times and our original recommendation was that there should be
additional open space along the canal and the Ten Mile Creek in order to try and
facilitate more of an open feel to these natural features. The Comprehensive Plan also
does call out that -- one of the few natural features the City of Meridian has is the Ten
Mile Creek and additional -- additionally, to the north of this site similar subdivisions
have given much wider berths to the Ten Mile Creek and rather than what the proposal
says. With that, there is a required development agreement for this annexation that the
city feels is needed in order to address this concern. Because this is dependent on
FEMA approving the letter of map revision and the flood designation for Ten Mile Creek,
the applicant should enter into an agreement with two options. One is to remove any
lots within the flood plane or to resubmit for a preliminary plat for phases one and two
and that is if the flood plane and flow way boundaries are not approved by FEMA, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 10 of 117
if -- according to the engineer's report, they should be accepted by FEMA, but this
would cover the city's concerns on that -- on that issue, as well as on the preliminary
plat there are conditions 14, 15, 16 and 17, which Public Works and Planning and
Zoning have agreed on to address staff concerns with the high groundwater and the
flood plane issues for the site. The second issue is that there are multi-use pathways.
This is a major intersection for what has been called out for the major regional pathway
system. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District did submit the letter that indicated that they
wished the -- or they would not allow the pathway system to access their property at
that weir and, as you can see, it's a significant feature, it would not facilitate a bridge or
any type of other crossing there. Staff has agreed with that letter and has put on a site
specific condition for the preliminary plat for number two, which says that the multi-use
pathway should still be -- occur on the site, but that an alternate location proposed by
the applicant and approved by this board was what we had recommended and that also
should be in cooperation with adjoining projects to the east and west of this project
eventually. The projects east of this site is -- or north of the site and east of the site is
the Tuscany Lakes development, which has an internal pathway system, as well as
proposing a public park, as well as there is an elementary school site located within
there. Staff feels that the site being the chosen location for the intersection between the
pathways, that the pathway should be build as close to the Comprehensive Plan as
possible. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of this site, which is the site
plan dated April 26th, with the conditions listed in the report. With that, Public Works
has added many conditions to try and address the mitigation of concerns with the
groundwater, as well as hope that the applicant engineer -- he is here and should
address that and if you have any questions, I will stand. Otherwise, please, hold your
questions for the engineer if they get too technical. Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. I have one. One of your
requirements is that they submit a dewatering plan. Can that be a little more fully
explained? What is that intended to accomplish?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The dewatering plan that's
mentioned in the geo tech report and which was also mentioned in our staff report, is
during construction the dewatering is to put the pipe work in for sewer and water storm
drain, that sort of thing. Unless you go with a foundation -- the crawl space under the
homes, there is another comment that speaks to that with the types of soils that are
present on this site, the building code would require a dewatering system around the
foundations of the homes. The applicant has told us verbally that they will not be
building any homes with crawl spaces, that all the homes that would be constructed
would be slab on grade. So, that -- that comment was just in there if they chose the
option of crawl spaces.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant care
to come forward, please.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm David Bailey, I'm with Bailey Engineering.
My office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle in Eagle and I am representing Gemstar
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 11 of 117
Development. I have been left holding the ball by our planners on this project, but I
have been involved in the detail throughout the project and, actually, have done the
layouts on the project and done the engineering work, so I apologize about my
presentation skills in advance and we will see how we can do and maybe when we get
to the engineering questions I can be better on those. First of all, I want to thank Joe for
the presentation there and for going over the project. I think he covered the issues
pretty well on this project. Again, it's 166 lots in a planned development for the site.
And I do want to cover just briefly a little bit of history on this, that -- that Joe has seen
some of it and the city has seen some of it and you have seen us here before you,
before already, the ones on the project. And this site does have some significant issues
that need to be overcome on it and we have, actually, redesigned the site about five
times and we have submitted three different revisions for the site. In trying to be
flexible, work with everybody and be flexible, we have worked with everybody and deal
with the issues that are on site. The layout as it is now is designed to deal with the high
groundwater levels, keep us separated from the -- from the high groundwater that we
have and to deal with the issues of how to get the multi-use pathway to work within the
project and get it so that the parks department's in agreement with it and that we are
avoiding the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District facilities, which they feel and we feel
also, could be a potential hazard to pedestrians in that area on that end of it. The
groundwater levels, we actually started monitoring last summer. We started monitoring
the groundwater levels and went through the entire winter and into the spring and, as
Joe pointed out, in the west end of the site where we are showing the park -- if you can
put the preliminary plat up. Where we are putting the park and I have noted on the
preliminary plat here, the higher groundwater level -- the highest groundwater level that
was noted as of this spring. It, actually, has come up about six inches higher than that
in our monitoring this year and we will use that highest groundwater level. The City of
Meridian requirements are that we have the -- the center line of the road three feet
above the highest established seasonal groundwater level and the purpose of that is to
prevent water in the crawl space. As Bruce said, we have committed and I have told
the developer he needs to require all the homes built in here to be built with slab on
grade, so we avoid the crawl space water problem and two issues with that, one with
the groundwater, two, as Bruce mentioned the type of soil out here, we do have some
clay soils near the surface. As we get down deep, it's actually fairly well draining
material, but it's -- there is groundwater in that also as well. But the heavier clay
materials often cause sprinklers to cause water in the crawl space, even when the
groundwater is not up that high. I've had quite a bit of experience with that. The type of
streets, to segway in here, the type of streets we have in here are the -- are the ACHD
alternative section when we have high groundwater, so we do not have -- we will not
have underground drainage facilities, we will have swales along the streets and that's a
32 foot asphalt section, with ribbon curb on both sides of the street and, then, detached
four foot sidewalks we will have along the streets throughout the development. Those
are all contained within the right of way that we have proposed and we will have street
trees subject to ACHD's requirements that they be placed in between the lots, so they
don't obstruct the swales on the side of the road. So, we will have street trees in that
area. Some of the developments have tried to put the sidewalks into the lots in an
easement and we felt that the setback requirement from the back of sidewalk precluded
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 12 of 117
us from doing that and we were able to keep it -- make the right of way wide enough to
keep the entire improvement within the right of way, with only easements for those, and
that area in between is maintained by the individual homeowner, although it's in the right
of way. As to the -- but that section requires -- the ACHD section requires that the
center line of the road actually be 4.5 feet above the highest established groundwater
level and that is the preliminary grading and profile plans that we submitted to the city
with the application showing the fill that would be required in order to raise that level up.
We will -- we are in agreement with the staff conditions on this, we will be submitting a
detailed grading plan that will indicate drainage for all of the lots, backs of the lots, finish
floor elevations for the houses to make sure that we meet our requirements on that end
of it and we are fully in agreement with that -- that portion of it. As to the flood plane
issue, we have had the study done by Paul Coonts, who does quite a few of the flood
studies in this area. He's completed the actual calculations, he completed all the survey
work, he has his paperwork all put together on this and he is telling us that if we remove
-- as Joe said, if we remove those three culverts, then, the flood way would be
contained within the limits of the actual Ten Mile Creek. And the next thing I asked him,
I said, okay, great, when do we submit this thing, we want to get it going. He said, well,
you can't, you got to pull those culverts out. Well, our plan is -- we can't actually submit
a letter until the culverts are removed and, then, we can -- they won't change the maps
until we actually change the ground out there. So, our plan is -- in the first phase is to
construct the first phase, including the park and the improvements on Locust Grove and
that requires a sewer extension in Locust Grove, which is already designed, by the way,
and submitted. And that would serve -- I think it's 52 lots in the first phase. While all
that construction was in progress, we would put the equipment on site, we would do our
grading and removal of the culverts in the Ten Mile Creek and submit that application.
So, we wouldn't even submit the -- the final plat application for the second phase until
that -- until that was completed. So, our plan is to coordinate the construction on that,
so that we are not going to ask to build any houses in the flood plan, let's put it that way,
before we submit that final plat for the second phase, we would have that done. And I'm
probably running out of time here. We have completed traffic studies on the project,
geo technical studies on the project, flood plane studies on the project, and analyzed
the roads and the sewer issues for the project, so I think we have really done our
homework on that end of it. As to -- real quick on the clubhouse, the remodel on this --
and I think the developer misunderstood me when I told him what we needed to do on
that. He's working on getting elevations on that and he went and talked to remodelers
about how they would remodel it, so that he could understand that we could actually do
that. Well, actually, the way the trusses on the house are, we will actually remove
enough from the end of the house in order to meet our setbacks for that and we will get
a building permit from the city prior to that construction and that will be completed prior
to the plat being recorded for that portion. I had one more thing. Oh, the buffers. I'm
understanding this now, hopefully, and I have talked to Joe several times, but I wasn't
involved in all the discussions. The multi-use pathway continues from this area and
down to the east and this is -- we have worked with the developer -- or with the planner
for Messina Meadows and we will be connecting to their stub street that they have
proposed. We have coordinated that. We originally had another stub here that wasn't
necessary and we will be connecting this multi-use pathway to their proposed location
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page130f117
where that comes out. The thing that we have added on here that's not shown on this,
is they have a multi-use pathway coming along the north boundary here and we will
bring that in here and slide this common lot over and bring it all the way down and tie it
into this location as well, so we have that connection there. And as a reference, the
construction for this will be -- it will probably be concrete on the ten feet. ACHD requires
us to build a four foot concrete sidewalk and, then, it could be asphalt on the pathway,
but we think we'd like to combine those into a ten foot pathway along there. We have it
shown as asphalt right now and ACHD conditions require that we add a four-foot
sidewalk on that -- that one as well. The issue about additional buffer space on the
north boundary here and on the east boundary here, we added ten feet on this end and
that was from discussion -- my discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District about
how to provide their access road here, not have any of the lots encroach onto the area
where they need their access road along the east boundary here, and we can do that
with the additional ten feet and that would be about at the top of bank. And we have
about 60 feet between the back of the lots here. We will be doing the Nampa-Meridian
approved non-burnable fence along this area and along the north boundary. Along the
north boundary -- it's hard to see from the field photo that Joe had where the property
line is and that there is, actually 25 feet from the backs of these lots to the top of bank of
the Ridenbaugh Canal and we feel that that leaves some room there. What we didn't
want and what we felt that Nampa-Meridian didn't want was an open or common lot
here that would, then, get turned into a pathway or have to be maintained by the
homeowners association or something -- something along those lines in the back here.
We would rather have that solid fence continued across the park as well to access
those facilities for this area in putting these lots right up against that property line. But
there is a significant separation between the backs of these lots and the Ridenbaugh
and there is also a vertical separation. We are not a big elevated canal that we are
sitting down below. As you saw from that picture, the actual water level in that is just
below the bank, because there is no -- there is no high bank, it's just flat out from that
area. So, we feel that that provides good separation and that buffer area is not on our
ground, it's on Nampa-Meridian's property and they can maintain that, they have their
access along that, and we feel that's appropriate. Given that, we are in full agreement
with all of the staff requirements, including the drainage and the groundwater issues.
We will fully comply with those -- those conditions and as far as these buffers here, as I
have said, we feel that we have addressed our separation from those, but as far as the
width or adding onto those, we have never gotten -- or I have never been involved in a
discussion about exactly what that means or how much we are looking for or what we
want to do there. We have been flexible throughout the whole process, five designs is -
- is where I'd like to stop, because I think we have got a good product put together here,
considering the difficulties of the site. If you have specific direction for us as to what we
need to do to change this to meet their concern -- we have moved all of this away from
this low point where we have the highest groundwater to minimize the fill on the site and
keeps this area in recreation. There will not be standing water in this park area. We
won't have any wet ponds within it. The drainage works out fairly well for us that way.
But, like I said, we are flexible, we have worked with the neighbors to the south, we
have worked with your staff a lot and with the fire department, the police department,
Ada County Highway District, through this, but, hopefully, we are getting what
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 14 of 117
everybody needs. If we are short on that still, we want to fix it. So, I would stand for
any questions with that.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I just wanted to get a little clarification. I assume for the walking path and you're
going to connect to the subdivision to the east, you're going to take it to the north side of
the property and, then, you're going to move Lot 20 over to align with this High Cliff
Avenue? Is that kind of what your plan is?
Bailey: Commissioner Moe, the Messina Meadows project actually has their path
shown in this area here. We will connect to that, move this common lot over to here,
bring that through our common area, along High Cliff there and, then, around this corner
and attach to this point here.
Moe: And your common lot is Lot 20, I assume, off your --
Bailey: Yes.
Moe: Okay. All right. Another question I have -- I just want to make sure I understand.
The park, is that a park for the subdivision or is that a Meridian city park, then?
Bailey: Commissioner Moe, it's a park for the subdivision and the city's policy that I
understand is that they won't accept parks that are less than seven acres in size. So, it
is for the subdivision.
Moe: And you will maintain -- your homeowners association maintains it, no problems
there?
Bailey Yes.
Moe: Then one other question for you and it's -- hopefully you can answer this and I'm
going to ask a few other people through the evening this same question. But, basically,
what you have got here is just -- I'm just somewhat reading by -- you know, you're in an
R-8 -- minimum R-8 is 6,500 square feet. Basically, you have got 144 out of 166 lots
are reduced from that. Can you kind of give me an idea why -- why does everybody
always want to reduce these things down? I mean we have some minimums for a
reason. I'm just trying to kind of get a clue -- I mean I have my own -- my own feelings
about it, but I'm just -- I'm curious from the development side and whatnot, what -- why
am I seeing these time and time again everything's being reduced down.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page150f117
Bailey: Commissioner Moe, I'm not sure I can satisfactorily -- I can explain to you my
take on it and I don't know if that will do you any good, but --
Moe: That helps.
Bailey: Or do us any good. My understanding is that the smaller lots are somewhat
more desirable for the builders in that the yards as smaller and in that the -- you're able
to take that extra square footage in the lots and put it into common area, that open
space, while keeping the density in that -- we are at 3.4 -- or 3.84 units to the acre total
density in this project, which is less than an R-4 zone, and so I think there is a desire to
match the minimum with the stated density goals. And if I could add one more thing
real quick to that -- and this was brought up to me by Mr. Gray, is I do have some
elevations that I brought of the types of buildings -- we have these smaller lots and the
goal of those smaller lots is in the center with the alley loaded, was to provide a little bit
of diverse housing type within the project and we wanted to mix things up some and
provide a little different housing product than are available and those lots are narrow
and I believe that the planners, when they submitted that, they interpreted that we were
going to do zero lot line houses there and I think it should be in the conditions that our
intent is to have those all single family detached homes. They are alley loaded and they
provide a nice -- you know, a nice view from the street on this area here and these are
the types of homes that we have taken pictures of that will be required to be built in
those areas. And we will leave that -- those on the record here for you, but I did want to
point that out. And those are not intended to be zero lot line attached homes.
Moe: Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Those are the homes you are proposing just for the alley loaded
section?
Bailey: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And you're saying build those on a slab of concrete? Is that what
that means?
Bailey: The slab-on-grade concept, instead of -- you know, I guess the -- it's very
common in a lot of areas to build slab-on-grade style homes and the actual footing still
goes down into the wall, but instead of building a wooden floor on top of that, you pour a
concrete floor and, then, build the house up from that area. So, there still are stem
walls. It's fairly standard construction. It has not, until recently, been very common in
this area, because it's more expensive build that way, although you can do some neat
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 16 of 117
things, such as heated floors and it does move things around within the house as far as
the -- as far as the heating and ventilation ducting and the pipe work, it's done differently
as far as they are put together. But it is a fairly standard form and absolutely eliminates
water in the crawl space problem, because there is crawl space. And so that's the main
reason. In the southern climates it's very common, because they don't need the frost
protection and they can -- like you said, basically pour a slab of concrete and build on
top of that without significant depth of the frost wall. So, we still need to build the frost
wall down, so that the footings and the supports are below the frost level.
Zaremba: I guess I still need some comfort with the flood plane area.
Bailey: Okay.
Zaremba: If I'm understanding you correctly, simply removing the culverts is going to
eliminate the flooding -- I mean from what you're saying or what you understand of it,
can we be comfortable that the houses that are along the Ten Mile Creek and the
Ridenbaugh Canal, regardless of whether they -- they don't have crawl spaces, there is
not going to be water in the living room ever or -- I mean my biggest concern is ten
years down the road when some of these houses flood and they say who approved this
-- how convinced are you that that's not going to happen?
Bailey: I am very convinced that it's not going to happen and what happens here is the
reason that the flood plane goes over the banks, because it's actually the banks that
come up and, then, drop off a little bit with the spoils on the side, the reason that that
would come over the banks with those culverts is they are actually 36 inch diameter
culverts that are in there and they are buried, actually. The water has to kind of go
down the hole in the ground and -- to get through. The culvert downstream is 84 inches
in diameter and so that will allow the amount of water that's collected upstream of this to
pass without backing it up. The 36 inch culvert, the volume of water that flows can't go
through the 36 inch, it backs up behind that and, then, rises out and floods out to the
side. The actual depth of flooding on that -- on the FEMA maps was never determined
in detail before and a lot of those maps are made from aerial photos and some contours
and, to tell you the truth, they are, basically, hand drawn and some of them are fairly
old. When we do this, even if we weren't going to remove the flood plane, we would
have done the detailed study and determined, okay, what is the highest elevation the
water would come to in a hundred year storm event and, then, we would be required to
build the house at one foot above -- one foot above that highest elevation and to
actually survey that in and get a certificate, then, the homeowner still has to get flood
insurance, even though they are surveyed up higher, they get, you know, flood
insurance. So, I'm very confident that the study shows that if those culverts were
removed, that the flood comes down there and stays in the channels and will not flood
the houses on the property adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek, based on FEMA's rules
and the way they calculate things. And they won't require flood insurance, even though
the mortgage companies are pretty confident about it as well, once we get the -- once
we get the study done and show where the actual boundaries are, the mortgage
company becomes confident enough that they require mortgage insurance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 17 of 117
Zaremba: That gives me a second question that I didn't have before, I guess. If the
culverts are currently acting as a break at a high water time or a high flood time, and
forcing the water to spread out over this land, they are doing a service downstream of
slowing the water and -- if you take these culverts out and let the water go through at
the speed that it's not currently going through, does FEMA ask you about the impact
downstream to -- I mean is this likely to cause flooding somewhere else where it doesn't
currently flood?
Bailey: The study that we do requires us to either start downstream with the numbers
as far as the flow or to work downstream and have to know where the break point is
downstream and work our way back up. Mr. Coonts, who actually did this study and did
the study to the north and, actually, wrote a whole bunch of maps in the 70s even, the
guy that did them for FEMA for years and years, actually had the data from the
downstream portion, but that's already calculated based on all this, you calculate the
downstream, you don't evaluate the upstream obstacles, you evaluate the downstream
obstacles and work your way upstream with the calculation is the way it's done. So, the
simple answer to that, which you probably prefer, is, no, it won't make it worse
downstream to do that. I will make a point, though, in working that upstream, he -- I
think he's also just completed a study on the Messina Meadows project for the same
issue, along there, and part of his recommendation that I -- that he told me is that their
being contained in the flood plane does depend on these culverts coming out as well.
So, for a variety of reasons we need Messina Meadows and they need us. We need
connections here, we need to get the water looped through, we need to get the city's
multi-use pathways put together and we need them to complete their phases to the
north and bring the sewer down, so that we can even do our second phase with that
sewer, but I understand that's planned for the spring, that construction, in the remainder
of Tuscany to the north of the project and they need us to remove these culverts, so that
we can all get the flood plane to work within the channel that's provided for it in that
area. So -- and we all need road connections to provide proper fire protection and
police protection in the area as well. Again, too much information, right?
Zaremba: No. That's fine. And you are very convincing, but give me the worst case
scenario. If, for some reason FEMA came back in response to your letter of map
revision and said, no, we are not changing it, what needs to be done?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe a question on that. Mr. Bailey, I think you --- didn't you
say that after the culverts come out they would, hopefully do in a new flood plane and
that would need to be approved before the final plat on those phases would be
approved?
Bailey: We are saying we are going to do it before the final -- so we wouldn't be able to
build the second phase.
Borup: So, they wouldn't even have final plat approval with the -- with the flood plane
the way it is; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 18of117
Bailey: That's correct.
Borup: So does that answer your question?
Zaremba: I'm agreeing with that, but I'm saying what if you never get it changed, can
you talk us through any ideas you might have about changing the -- you have to move
residences away from the canal and put open space there or would you fill and build it
up or -- I mean what --
Bailey: Yeah. As I explained before -- I mean if we were intending to build in the flood
plane and we removed those -- when we remove those, that just allows us to send the
letter. There is no additional calculation or work or no additional survey work, except for
them to certify that those are removed and that it can flow in that area. We have
already got the engineering study done to prove that can happen. So, unless FEMA
changes the way they review these things, which is possible, no doubt, I can't predict
what the federal government might do, but it -- then we would actually determine base
flood elevation based on the same study and those wouldn't even have to be approved
by FEMA, we submit it to FEMA so they would have it as a detailed study, then, we
build a foot above that flood plane. Those homeowners would, then, be required to
have flood insurance.
Zaremba: That sounds familiar. I think you explained that earlier, but I didn't get the
connection. Okay.
Bailey: But, if we did that, if that happened, I would have to come back before you and
explain why this all fell apart and why I didn't know what I was talking about when I was
in here tonight.
Zaremba: So, if I'm understanding, your intention is to do phase one, which is a phase
closer to Locust Grove, but while all the equipment is there take these culverts out and
your assumption is, then, that there will be no objection from FEMA to go forward. Do
you have a timeline for when you might have a response from FEMA that says, oh,
yeah, this is fine?
Bailey: I haven't done the actual submittal myself, but it's been my impression that it's a
six month to a year process.
Zaremba: And that holds you up or you expected to take that long to get to this phase
anyhow?
I
Bailey: We would be constructing the -- at this point I'm not sure that we could get
under construction on the first phase until well into the winter and so we would be
probably near the end of next year before we could start the second phase. So,
timingwise it probably works pretty well and it might hold us help. We understand that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 19 of 117
We want to get it going as soon as possible, but we can't do that until -- until we make
the next step.
Zaremba: Other questions for Mr. Bailey? Okay. Thank you. And we do have a
couple other people signed up to speak and we will begin with Michael Gray, please.
Gray: Good evening. My name is Michael Gray. I live at 4460 South Locust Grove
Road, which is the property that directly adjoins the proposed development just to the
south, and, first of all, I'd like to thank the developers for working with me on the lot
layout that directly adjoins my property boundary, to provide some buffer zone between
the low density residential area of the -- of the Comprehensive Plan and the medium
density residential areas. I also, though, would like to express my concern on the
reduced lot sizes in the R-8 zone. They are asking for an R-8 zone and, then, they are
asking for reduced lot sizes in the CUP and, in addition, in the CUP I think it needs to be
so stated that the alley access lots will not be a zero setback construction. My concern
is that -- and it's been mentioned to me before that there is a potential there for having
adjoined homes or condos or even potentially apartment complexes in those kind of
situations. So, the designer has indicated that they don't intend to do that and I think it
ought to be so stated in their CUP. Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Moe: No.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. On this--
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: On this zero lot line, didn't we already -- is that already stated in the
staff comments that --
Zaremba: I don't see that it --
Newton-Huckabay: -- that it's single-family residences?
Zaremba: It says single family. The applicant has agreed that there will be no zero lot
line, but Mr. Gray's comment is that ought to be in writing.
Newton-Huckabay: And it's not in there. Okay.
Zaremba: Since the applicant's already agreed, it shouldn't be a problem to have that
as a condition, in my opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Thank you.
Zaremba: Jason Wolf, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 20 of 117
Wolf: Good evening. My name is Jason Wolf, I live at 4646 South Locust Grove, just
south of Michael Gray. Before I get started, could I ask a question? The engineer said
that there was no underground drains and that there was no standing water anywhere.
I was just wondering where the water went to.
Zaremba You ask us the question and, then, we will ask the applicant--
Wolf: All right. Very good.
Zaremba: -- when he comes back later we will ask him then.
Wolf: Okay. Generally, I have the same concerns as Michael Gray. Looking over the
Comprehensive Plans -- or Comprehensive Plan, I noted a few things of interest. To
quote, it encourages efficient use of open space at the area of impact boundaries to
effectively transition from rural areas to urban uses. Also to require new urban density
subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to
provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot
sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities
and also to require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that
are more intense than adjacent residential properties. It appears that there is a few
conflicts with these action items or goals from the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
development consists of very small lot sizes, a reduced size from the R-8 zoning. It's
directly adjacent to large rural size lots, it's, without a doubt, more intense than the
adjacent residential properties. This implies that development should follow the
guidelines and actions that I just -- that I just mentioned. It doesn't appear that there is
really much transition between the urban density and the rural density in this area as
desired by the Comprehensive Plan. I also wanted to mention that the traffic studies
given in the preliminary reports did not include the impacts from the additional seven or
eight subdivisions that are under construction or under development at the current time.
So, I think that the traffic study, while they might have been okay back then, they should
really consider looking at it again, because there is going to be a thousand or so more
lots in the area since then. Anyway, thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. I guess we are
ready for Mr. Bailey to make some final remarks, if you would, please. I'm sorry. That
was everybody that was signed up, but anybody who hasn't signed up care to speak? I
should have asked that.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown. Business address 1800 West Overland. We are
developing next door in both directions, both north and east. We had a similar flood
plane on the property to the north in the Tuscany Lakes development and contacted Mr.
Coonts and had him do the flood study and it reduced it down into the channel and he's
told us on the Messina property that that's going to be the case also, as soon as these
culverts are removed. One of the stories I like to use when talking about flood planes is
we are all familiar with J.R. Simplot's house and that there is a gully on either side of his
-,---.
.~.
.-...-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page21of117
house and his house was in the flood plane, according to the non-study and until you do
a detailed study that defines where it's at and those things come into case when we hire
these professionals and they look at it specifically and site specific and that modifies
those. The city of Boise did one, because the capital building and city hall was in the
flood plane and changed basically the entire downtown area, because it wasn't defined
correctly. Worst case scenario is what he made reference to is that you're allowed to
do, on an each individual house, prove that it's one foot above the defined flood plane
and now that -- and if that happens, we now have an elevation that we would have to
have those homes above and that's similar to what has happened along the Boise River
down in southeast Boise, they just did map amendments for those individual houses
and we moved them up and I just wanted to speak to the flood plane.
Rohm: Interesting.
Zaremba: Thank you for that illumination. Any questions? Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, you're wrinkling your brow. Is there something that's troubling you?
Newton-Huckabay: That's unusual, me wrinkling my brow, isn't it?
Zaremba: Okay. We had another person wishing to speak.
Dalton: For the record, I'm Sherry Dalton and I own the property immediately south that
follows along the Ten Mile ditch there. The last culvert on the property to the north of
me was put there for the convenience of the farmer to cross from one side of his
property to the other, but when you get onto my property immediately south of it, there
is a huge blowout and I'm concerned about the continuity as you pass through the three
or four different properties and, then, on to Messina Subdivision that I'd like to see a
cooperative effort that that channel be made equally as wide and deep for the length of
the run, because at this time my property has suffered, because the culverts that have
been put up above it. Also, it wasn't until Mr. Bailey spoke tonight that I realized that I
was concerned about what the runoff was going to be, where it was going to be
directed. As one of my other neighbors said, well, if there isn't going to be underground
pipes, where are they going to put the runoff? And also I believe that the privacy fence
that was being put up stopped as it hit my property and did not continue across at that
point. My intentions, although they have not been stated, are to have a specific planned
development on my parcel to come next year. But those are my concerns, that this Ten
Mile ditch be uniform in its design as far north and as far south as it impacts any of the
properties adjacent to it. I was kind of concerned as to what FEMA had directed this
Ten Mile ditch to be. Having been a farmer for many many years, I'm curious if it's ten
inches of water per months or 20 inches of water per month or how much rainwater or
runoff they are talking about that capacity is meant to hold. And maybe the engineer
can answer that. But those are my concerns.
Zaremba: May I clarify a moment. Let's see. It looks like there is a third culvert down
here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 22 of 117
Dalton: Right there.
Zaremba: Is that one on your property?
Dalton: No. That's on the property to the north of me. This is my property right here.
This piece. And where we have the blowout is right in this area.
Zaremba: And tell me what you mean by blowout. Is that overflow or --
Dalton: It's goes from a 36-inch diameter culvert to about a 15, 18 foot wide blowout.
It's just huge. It's massive, as the water has boiled in that section. And I'm just asking if
there would be a general engineering for the entire length of it, so that there is continuity
in the design and the flow of water.
Zaremba: And that's an area that, essentially, needs to be repaired back to an original
condition; is that what you're saying?
Dalton: I would assume. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. But it is an affect that's been caused
by the property to the north. And I was concerned as to ongoing when this is all houses
and all hardscape, what the drainage issues are representative to the adjacent
neighbors. Those are my questions.
Zaremba: We will ask all of that of Mr. Bailey. Anybody else care to speak? Okay.
Now we are ready for Mr. Bailey.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: I saw you taking notes, so you probably know what the questions are.
Bailey: I did take -- I'll address a couple of them and, then, I'll let you -- then I will be
quiet and you tell me what we need to talk about. Again, I'll restate from Mr. Gray's
comments that those alley units are intended to be detached and we wouldn't object at
all to that being added as a condition to the project. As to Mr. Wolf, I think the question
comes up on the drainage here and where I have my information some -- while I've
gone out to the site, I don't live there and so I'm not exactly sure what he's talking about.
The water -- and I'm not denying that there is not standing water out there, I'm saying
that our -- the way we will grade and create the park area there is so that it does not
have standing water in that area. The concern of this site or what causes some of the
problems is that the Ridenbaugh Canal effectively forms a cutoff. The site actually
contours from southeast to northwest. And what I'm talking about, about no
underground drains, there is currently not a drain on this side of the Ridenbaugh Canal
that releases that water across Locust Grove or out to any drainage facility. So, the
only way the site can really drain is to go uphill to Ten Mile Creek in that area. A
significant amount of that water, in my opinion, anyway, that is out there is due to flood
irrigation and a lot of it from this site. We will be -- we do have irrigation water that
comes into this property from the south, which drains into the site and is intended to go
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 23 of 117
to the Ten Mile Creek and while it's going to be quite a bit of pipe, we will collect that, as
we are required to do, bring that to the northwest corner and pipe it -- solid pipe, not a
perforated, along the north boundary there to the Ten Mile Creek, so that irrigation
runoff water can leave the site.
Borup: Mr. Bailey, I think his question was probably an explanation of the swale
drainage system. That's I think what he didn't understand. The roadside swales.
Zaremba: How does that work?
Borup: Maybe while they are looking for that, basically, it's the same system that we
have had in existence for the last hundred and two hundred years, it's -- all the country
roads have borrow pits on the side of them, so this is just refining that in a subdivision.
Bailey: And I guess kind of to add to that, as far as the amount of water that rainfall that
falls on the site doesn't change when we develop it, the way that it gets routed from that
point does change when we develop it and that's what we are mostly concerned of --
concerned with. The reason I'm asking for the preliminary plat is we do have the cross-
sections on there, on the preliminary plat, that shows the drainage swales. There is,
actually, several different cross-sections on the preliminary plat that show the road and
the drainage swales and that's the section approved by ACHD. In effect, the swale is
nine feet wide and the edge of the ribbon curb and, then, you get to the sidewalk. So,
it's a pretty substantial landscape strip between the edge of the ribbon curb and the
sidewalk area.
Rohm: That's part of the -- the lot or is that a common --
Bailey: It's all in the right of way. The public right of way.
Rohm: Oh, that's in the public right of way. And will be maintained by the property
owner?
Bailey: By the property owners. Correct. And shown on this area here, they are
required to be -- if I can read them, these are the cross-sections. There is some
granular material in this area and the ability to grow grass on top of this is what you
want, but you don't want to put sod in these in that that could cause them to hold water.
And, then, there is two feet of sand and more gravel on the bottom of that and the way
the numbers add up is the groundwater level could be as high as the very bottom, just
kind of a mini seepage bed that's continuous along the sides of the road to make sure
that these don't hold water and that the nuisance water doesn't sit in them and cause a
mosquito breeding problem or kill the grass in there. Three feet from there to the invert
of the swales and, then, by the time you get from the swale up to the road and back up
to the center line of the road, it's four and a half feet total from the high groundwater up
to the center line of the road. I hope that answers that question. And I did want to
continue there and I have the report from materials testing. I submit these on a regular
basis to your staff as well. I think we just sent today one to Bruce. Today or yesterday.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 24 of 117
I just faxed it over. So, we have groundwater monitoring from June of last year to May
of this year, so we have one full year of groundwater monitoring from wells installed on
the site right now. One of the conditions is that we continue to monitor groundwater
after the final plat is recorded, so that we can see that effect to make sure that we are
not creating problems as we go along and either correct it in the next phase or correct it
in the phase we already built if that groundwater continues to rise for some reason.
Zaremba: I think the continued monitoring. I think that's fair, since flooding is one of the
topics of discussion.
Bailey: That's -- as Mr. Wolf commented on the traffic studies, the traffic study was
done by Washington Group in accordance with ACHD standards submitted to them and,
in fact, we updated the traffic report -- we had them review the traffic report with this
preliminary plat and provide us a letter saying that they thought that the conditions were
substantially the same as when they did the original traffic study on that. And I couldn't
tell you off the top of my head, without reading through, what they assumed as far as
the future development in that area, but, typically, the arterial street on the frontage
would be affected by that and that's not necessarily what's the limiting factor in the
traffic study. And I hope I didn't miss any. If I did --
Newton-Huckabay: What about the culvert to the --
Bailey: Oh, yes. As to the culvert on the southeast, I would -- I am planning on putting
together a plan to grade that. We need to put a culvert in there. We need a permit,
license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to do that work and I'm sure
the developer and I think it would be a good idea to do that work in that area as well and
I would be glad to talk with Mrs. Dalton about how we do that and I guess who pays for
what, but as far as getting that all put together, it does not affect the flood plane in doing
that, but it certainly affects that appearance of the area out there and, then, the flood
plane kind of goes away on her property as well when we move those. So, I don't have
any problem with working with her at all on getting that taken care of while we will do the
construction. I just can't speak to the developer about how he wishes or she might wish
to pay for that portion.
Zaremba: Okay. In your previous discussion I think you were talking about a culvert. Is
there one there?
Bailey: There is one culvert in this area that's approximately 36 inches. One in this
area here and one here and they were constructed for farm access.
Zaremba: And I -- in your previous discussion I thought you were only talking about two
of them, but you're now saying that the third one, which appears to be mostly on your
property, you're going to deal with all three of them?
Bailey: Yes. And, actually, this one wouldn't affect our flood plane, but it's on our
property and we need to remove it for the area to the south, so we are going to be doing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 25 of 117
that construction there anyway and we will need to cooperate with Mrs. Dalton in that
we are going to have to enter at least a little bit on her property there to get that done,
both Nampa-Meridian -- like I say, it's in their easement and they could authorize that,
but we certainly don't want to go on someone else's property without their permission.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes.
Freckleton: Could I ask a question of Mr. Bailey?
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton, please do.
Freckleton: Dave, just -- a couple questions came up as we were looking at the section
of ACHD's alternate design section. Your preliminary plat showed a rolled curb.
Doesn't ACHD require a ribbon curb?
Bailey: They do require a ribbon curb and their staff report requires the ribbon curb and
we are --
Freckleton: Okay. So, your detail is just in error?
Bailey: My preliminary plat has not been updated to show that.
Freckleton: Okay. Second question is in regards to the Division of Environmental
Quality's separation requirements from the bottom of a seepage bed to high
groundwater is three feet. Has ACHD addressed that issue with DEQ regarding the
bottom of these seepage beds along swales to high groundwater?
Bailey: The standard I use is Ada County Highway District and it's ACHD roadside
infiltration and swale criteria and design details and they have built several of these in
Star and been approved by ACHD where the groundwater level was right at -- right at
that level and so as far as separation, they are not considering this to be a seepage
bed, in that it doesn't have a pipe that puts water into it, so the separation requirement is
from the -- from the invert of the swale to that bottom and that's the three foot --
Freckleton: Okay. ACHD isn't considering it or DEQ isn't considering it?
Bailey: DEQ is not.
Freckleton: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: While Mr. Bailey is there, any other questions from staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 26 of 117
Guenther: Just one comment. There is a condition of approval in the -- under the
Conditional Use Permit for the planned development that says that all setbacks will be
standard R-8 setbacks, which includes the five-foot side setback. The original proposal
did ask for a zero side setback and as detailed in the staff analysis I believe on page
three, the Conditional Use Permit special condition I believe number two.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: Number one. It's number one. Under setbacks.
Zaremba: Tell me the page and number.
Guenther: We have got page 24 under setbacks.
Zaremba: The applicant is studying that. We will have his comment in a moment.
Bailey: I am and the -- and the real planner just told me that the request there was for a
three foot side setback on those alley-loaded lots that have the single family detached.
Zaremba: Three feet on the side of the lot line, so --
Bailey: Yes.
Borup: That's just a verbal request? That hasn't been made in writing?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, note number two on the plat says all side lot lines shall have
a five-foot drainage and irrigation easement. So, how can you have a three-foot
setback? As well as note number one on their preliminary plat says --
Bailey: Well, I'll do this to clear this up. We will go with five foot setbacks and if we
need to lose a lot to get the buildings to fit appropriate in there, then, we will remove one
lot from each side of that alley to make the buildings fit. We will comply with the
setbacks.
Rohm: Can't beat that.
Borup: So, you're saying you will comply with what your plat says?
Bailey: Exactly.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it doesn't need to be revised, it already says that.
Bailey: Right.
Zaremba: Just so there is no confusion between what was discussed and what's on
plat. Mr. Freckleton, you appear to be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 27 of 117
Freckleton: Just one more that I forgot about and that is the updated report that we did
get on groundwater, well, basically all the updated reports that we have gotten on
groundwater have only been representative of three test holes. Ten test holes were
done originally across this site, but the updated information that we have gotten has
only been on three of the ten. One of our requirements that we are proposing in our
staff report is that the applicant is to provide us with a groundwater contour and that
they should also maintain a minimum of five groundwater monitoring wells in the project.
Those are the two-year monitorings. So, I guess the question I have got is why only
three? How come we have only gotten monitoring information on three of the ten holes
or does your geo tech feel that those three monitoring wells give him a representative
sample of what is to be encountered across this site?
Bailey: Yes, the geo tech and I both believe that that gives us a representative,
because we dug all the holes and checked the groundwater levels in all the holes to
start with and, then, we picked the three worst locations on the site to monitor and the
low areas where we expect the water to drain to. If you'd like us to install additional
ones to make you more comfortable, we would be happy to do that. But that's the first I
have heard of that request and it's very standard for us to dig quite a few holes on a site
and monitor the ones that we think are the representative of the highest groundwater
level on a site.
Zaremba: So, there are not ten reports, seven of which you're ignoring, you pick the
worst ones and those are what you're reporting.
Bailey: That's -- yes. Well, we have not been measuring the groundwater levels in the
other seven on a regular basis. We have only been actually -- we are going out and
measuring them every month on those three, which we -- which me and the geo tech
decided were the ones that we wanted to monitor over the long run to determine where
the worst high groundwater levels were.
Zaremba: And are those the ones you plan to continue monitoring?
Bailey: Yes. We are going to have to add two more to meet the conditions of approval,
obviously, and we will add those additional monitoring wells. A total of five.
Borup: So, was the city originally supplied the ten that were done initially?
Bailey: Yes, they were. In the complete --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. I guess I have no further questions. Any other Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 28 of 117
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: -- comments, I guess, on -- I'm kind of confused on the multi-use
pathway. Is that addressed -- I didn't -- it seemed to me that staff was asking for three
different spots.
Guenther: Yeah. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, let me just -- well, if I can ask Mr.
Bailey. Three spots are south on the Ten Mile Creek, east on the Ridenbaugh, and,
then, it would be going west on the Ridenbaugh. What we have asked for is a -- an
alternate proposal according -- for what is -- what the Comprehensive Plan calls for,
which is an intersection at this location. We don't feel that that should be an intersection
either. I mean we are in complete agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. The
original proposal dated the 26th does not have the connection from where the new
bridge would be located here through to the north and on into Messina Meadows.
Tonight they have even put on the record that that is what they are going to do and staff
supports that.
Newton-Huckabay: So the pathway question is resolved?
Guenther: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Bailey: And I guess there is an e-mail that I have a copy of that Doug Strong had sent
to Joe today confirming that he was fine with the way the -- your parks department was
fine with the way that we are proposing the pathway on the property.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, my other comment -- or I guess this is just a comment.
Kind of goes back to what Commissioner Moe said. It seems to me that the reduction in
lot sizes is -- I would consider it somewhat a substantial reduction, making the product --
the project denser than I think maybe it should be. Is that kind of -- because you're
reducing lots over 2,000 square feet; right? Because you have got 6,500 square foot as
the minimum and you're requesting 44 -- well, I just want to know what the rest of you
think about it. That seems like a substantial amount to me and it seems like -- I mean I
understand when you're doing the alley-loaded pieces of the project, that those are
quite small and that's what people who are buying those are looking for, but the rest of it
seems a little dense for my taste.
Zaremba: I would comment that I have had an opinion that, actually, has changed 180
degrees over the time that I have been on the commission. My original thought was we
have these standards; we have these requirements, how come everybody is asking for
deviation from them. You know, why have the requirements if we are approving all
sorts of deviations. My opposing opinion on that, which is where I am now, is if we are
talking about an R-8 zone, theoretically, you should be able to put eight dwelling units
on an acre. If you consider the setbacks and the landscape buffers and streets all that
sort of stuff, we have an R-8 zone where they are asking for reduced lot sizes and they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 29 of 117
are still getting less than four per acre on it. How would anybody ever get eight units in
an R-8 zone? It doesn't sound to me like it's mathematically possible and that has
convinced me to be much more willing to allow people to at least approach eight, if they
can, and in this case they are still not even making four, even asking for these
reductions. So, I -- you know, I don't mean that to be everybody's opinion, but I have
changed my opinion to say those original requirements, where ever they came from, are
preventing the intent of the district, which is to get eight units to the acre.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you're supposed to get 15 units on R-15?
Zaremba: That would be my theory.
Newton-Huckabay: And four on an R-4 and --
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Mr. Bailey appears to have a comment.
Bailey: Well, if I could say when I first -- when I first --
Newton-Huckabay: Can't you put like 30 in an R-15 or something?
Bailey: When I first -- the developer first brought me this project and I started doing
layouts and working on what to put on the project, I did an R-8 in accordance with
Meridian standards -- standard numbers on the -- and I don't have the exact number off
the top of my head, but it was about 160 units, okay. In the R-8 zone with a square site,
for example, on the west side of the road, Roseleaf, Chatsworth, those projects there,
we were able to achieve just about four units to the acre with the straight R-8 zone.
Now, knowing that we have the problems with the site, knowing that are going to
provide some -- some alley-loaded and the groundwater levels and the issues with the
site, made it reasonable for us to increase the open space significantly to avoid the
highest groundwater areas and to -- and to open the streets and provide the 62 feet of
right of way, that necessitated us to keep about the same number of lots and the goal
density -- and it's not a density goal, although we are running into this in some other
communities where we are getting -- we are getting yelled at for not hitting a certain
number per acre. In order to keep it around that four to the acre range, we kept the
same number of lots, but reduced the lot sizes and most of that transferred in there. If I
came in with this as a straight R-8, 65 by 100 square foot lots in this project, I believe I
can get the same -- about the same number of units. We may be six higher I think is
probably where we are at. Because I can get about four to the acre on a layout of that.
In the Boise R-8 I just know off the top of my head I can get about five to the acre with
5,000 square lots. I mean it's just -- I do it enough that I know where they are. And we
could probably get close to that with a straight R-8. I think this provides the same
number of units, it provides a diversity in housing type, provides roadside swales,
provides open space for the homeowners here and that's big enough that -- while it's
not a public park, it's certainly bigger for the neighbors -- big enough for the
neighborhood to -- for the surrounding neighborhoods to also use if they care to in that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 30 of 117
area and I think it provides a good project and takes into account the physical
constraints of the site, which are significant, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough.
Borup: I would just comment. I have the same feeling. You know, you wonder about
these smaller lots, but -- because I kind of see the opposite problem, there is not
enough large lots. But if there wasn't a demand, then, they wouldn't be selling. So,
obviously, there is a market demand. I think the other factor, going along with what you
had mentioned, Commissioner -- or Chairman, is that not only the zoning, but it's
already designated in the Comprehensive Plan as medium density, which is three to
eight. So, that's -- that was decided three years ago, that that was what this area was
intended for was medium density. And that's what they are complying with, three to
eight. They are on the low side of the Comprehensive Plan, but it's -- yeah, the
numbers don't really work. They have never been able to comply with the dimensional
standards and reach the density of -- if R-4 is supposed to be four per acre. That's
been the case from as long as Meridian's had zoning, I believe.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. Just one last comment. Number one, I would say that -- back to my earlier
question of Mr. Bailey earlier, I would say that, Mr. Chairman, your answer was great
and, Mr. Bailey, your second answer you just gave was much better than the first and
more concise and you had time to think about it, I guess, because you sold me on that
one.
Bailey: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Me, too.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions or comments? Staff?
Bailey: Thank you.
Guenther: The only confusion with the setbacks is it should have been taken care of. If
there is any other questions, it's just that through this process, the original application
that came in had different requests and they changed through the resubmittals. The
submittal as of -- that's dated April 26 does indicate that the minimum setback request
for the CUP, there was no change to that, which means that they would have accepted
the regular R-8 and that was on the later submittal, not the original one. Other than
that, I think most of the questions have been answered. Anything else for me?
Zaremba: Look at page 16 of your report for a minute, if you would. The site specific
conditions, preliminary plat, number one. You state -- because you were just on that
subject, you state preliminary plat prepared by Bailey Engineering, dated January 6,
2005, is approved with the conditions. Should we change that to April 26, 'OS?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 31 of 117
Guenther: That is correct. I believe that was a typo. I had to go back and change all of
those dates and I must have missed one.
Zaremba: Okay. Sa, on page 16, paragraph one, that needs to be the date April 26,
'OS, received by the city clerk April 29th, if that makes a difference. So, we are talking
about the same one. Okay. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-007, PP 05-009,
and CUP 05-008.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Do we need any discussion? We appear to be ready to proceed, if you care
to.
Moe: Just a couple of questions. Do we -- do we need to reference the walking path
that he's -- that they said they are going to put in on the north side? Does that need to
be in the preliminary plat?
Guenther: The preliminary plat does -- there is a condition of approval in there that
indicates that the applicant has the -- that staff is requiring that the applicant provide a
walking -- or the multi-path connection to the Ridenbaugh Canal to the east of the site,
in cooperation with the other developments and as stated on the record it should be
sufficient.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: There was one other item during the discussion that --
Mae: That's from the CUP you're talking about --
Zaremba: Yeah. That was agreed to.
Moe: -- the lot line -- the zero lot line? Yeah. I have got that.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay.
Moe: That would be in the CUP. So, having said that -- there wouldn't be anything on
the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 32 of 117
Borup: The setback is already covered in the staff report.
Moe: Well, that's right here.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? The setback -- I mean it's covered, because it's on the plat, but
didn't you say -- and you also have in the staff report that it would comply with R-8
setback standards; is that correct?
Guenther: That's correct.
Borup: So, we have got it covered in two areas, then.
Guenther: Yes. There is one additional consideration in the staff report and that is the
20-foot to a garage, which would be -- if the sidewalk is there, it's a standard obstruction
for a 20-foot truck in the driveway.
Moe: That's already in there.
Borup: That's in there, too.
Guenther: They are all in there.
Zaremba: Do we need to add a requirement to monitor five locations for --
Guenther: That is in there.
Zaremba: Okay. Way ahead of us.
Guenther: We have spent a lot of time on this application.
Moe: Okay. So, I'm on the preliminary plat. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: -- I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-007.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, may I also add something?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: The current submittal is still lacking a few of the considerations and we
would just like to have maybe a condition that says that the applicant shall submit to
staff in order to forward these changes onto City Council, I'd like to make sure that City
Council has the changes that we have discussed tonight in front of them when they hear
this.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 33 of 117
Zaremba: Ten days prior to the next hearing.
Guenther: To the City Council hearing. Unless you would like to see the changes prior
to -- before it moves on. Otherwise, staff would just like to make sure that our records
are correct. Currently, the last landscape plan that we have received is dated January
6th and it doesn't take into reference any of the changes that have been made through
the April 26th submission either. So, it would just be nice to have the most current
version going to City Council, please.
Zaremba: So, the question is do we feel we need to see all that before we make our
recommendation. The applicant has agreed to, essentially, everything in -- in the staff
report and we are ending up not modifying much of that.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: I think just adding the requirement that they have the plans to staff by ten
days before the next hearing would be --
Borup: We have only been seeing this for four months, so -- so your question is do we
want to do it one more month?
Rohm: No. I know the answer to that one.
Moe: Shouldn't that go in the preliminary plat as well? In those comments? I think we
can -- we can be assured that staff is going to take a look all that and make sure it's fine
before it goes on to Council.
Zaremba: Except the requirement is that they have it ten days before that. That's what
we are adding is --
Moe: Applicant will submit ten days -- updated plans ten days prior to City Council
hearing. That will work --
Zaremba: Is that part of your current motion?
Moe: It will when I get to it.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry.
Moe: I'm not there yet. I have, actually, made a motion to --
Newton-Huckabay: I think you need to restart it.
Moe: I'm going to restart it.
Zaremba: Let's restart the motion, please.
u "
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 34 of 117
Moe: I will as soon as I find -- that's what I'm looking for here. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I
move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-007, to include
all staff comments for the hearing date of June 2nd, 2005, received by the city clerk's
office May 27,2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: And Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-009,
to include all staff comments of the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received by the city
clerk's office May 27, 2005, with the following change: On page 16 of the report, under
item -- under site specific conditions, item number one, I would like to change the date
noted there as January 6, 2005, change that to April 26, 2005, and also I would like to
add an item 19, to read: The applicant will submit updated plans for this development
ten days prior to the City Council hearings. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-008,
to include staff comments for the hearing date of June 2nd, 2005, received by the city
clerk's office May the 27th, with the following change: Under site specific conditions,
general -- of a Conditional Use Permit, on page 25, I would like to add an item number
five to read that all -- at all alley access lots no zero lot line adjustments -- no zero lot
line lots will be allowed.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 2, 2005
Page 35 of 117
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: AZ 05-013 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 120.15 acres from R1, RUT, C-G and I-L zones
to C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East
Fairview Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: PP 05-015 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 120.15
acres in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East Fairview Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: CUP 05-020 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for commercial I
office I industrial and multi-family uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O
zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of
North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. The next two items I believe we can dispose of
quickly, so let's try those before we take our break, if I may. I will open -- or reopen the
continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-013, and PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020, and
entertain a motion to continue these again to our meeting of August 4th. They all relate
to the Pinebridge Subdivision, which has not been settled on with ACHD yet.
Rohm: So moved.
Zaremba: Okay. Do we have a second?
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to continue these three items to August 4th.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.9
acres from RUT to C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball
Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: