Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 4, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 13 of 57 Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15. 32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15. 32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for AZ 05- 026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, all relating to Hollybrook Subdivision, 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road, and even though these have been continued a couple times, this will be the first time that we will discuss any substance and we will begin with the staff report, please. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we always know when we are in trouble when I'm supposed to give substance, so I will do my best this time. This is an in-fill development. As you will notice, it's an unusual shaped property, to say the least. And it is surrounded on the west, the north, and, then, the northeast by development. You have got Heritage Commons and you have got Sundance and, then, you have on the eastern side Weaver Acres, is the larger one-acre subdivision that was done through Ada County and is still in -- actually in Ada County's jurisdiction. They are not annexed. This is a request for 55 building lots and 11 common lots on 15. 32 acres. You can see the existing house patterns. I have some blowups of this, so -- it's very difficult to see, I recognize that. There are basically kind of three patterns to the development. You have kind of mid size lots here that blend from Heritage Commons to Sundance and, then, you have some -- given the very narrow width of this area, you have a roadway, and, then, you have some quite small lots and, then, down here you have got some larger lots that somewhat integrate into the one acre parcels to the north and some larger lots in this area, including lots for the existing home. You can't see it very well on this one -- okay. I tried to blowup some of the street connections. There is a street connection down to Ustick and here you will see there is a little island right here, so the right of way bows out. There is a traffic-calming item there -- island there and, then, there is two pinches -- see if I can find them. Here is one pinch and there is the other pinch right there. So, you can see it right there. So, what will happen in that area, the area that would normally be available for parking gets kind of pinched off, so that the road narrows. So, you will come in first, you will go around a curve, there will be an island, you will go along the street length, there will be a little pinch and it will Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 14 of 57 widen it back out again, another pinch and, then, as you come up to here another island. I'm concentrating on these, because this was the big item of -- this is why it's been continued many times is the discussion of how to make this road so that it wasn't a straight shot and a high speed corridor. Then, as you come around the corner, there is another island right here and another island here. So, as you come out of Heritage there is an island and, then, you have got a little bulb or something like that and, then, you have got another island here, you have to go around, make another corner around another island. So, they have gone to great lengths to integrate traffic calming into the road design. Just as -- this was the original design. As you can see, it was really a straight shot. This did mean flipping the road. So, whereas before the road was against the Sundance properties and smaller lots were to the rear of the one acre properties, now there is the road immediately adjacent to the east property line. Staff is in favor of this for a couple of reasons -- actually, I think we probably proposed it. One was that it gave them the ability to curve this road a little bit and to meander it and also it facilitated redevelopment of these properties. As you will see, most of the houses are built toward the front of the properties and although -- we like to accommodate future developments in all the proposals that come through and we thought this gave the ability to -- for these folks to divide off a portion of the back property of their lots in the future and they would have direct access. So, we are not requiring it, of course, but as those folks wanted to maybe have less property to take care of, that would be an option that's available to them. And that right of way runs right against their property line. So, there would be no road construction necessary to subdivide those properties. These are some examples of the housing that's proposed and these will fit on the smaller lots. Okay. All right. The overall gross density of the project is 3. 59 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and -- consistent with the median density residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan. They have proposed six percent open space at this time on the current landscape plan. Now, that landscape plan is based on the former layout. There is a requirement for a new landscape plan. We would be looking for the same amount of open space on that. They have requested -- they have requested a number of reductions to our current standards. In particular, the frontage requirement would go from 65 feet down to 55 feet and the lot size would go down from 6,500 to four hundred -- I'm sorry, 4,428 square feet. As part of their amenities, in exchange for those reduced standards, they have proposed pathway connections to the multi-use pathway in Sundance Place Subdivision and, then, seating areas along all pathways. Here is -- and I will have the applicant point out some of those, because I lost a lot -- one of these lots is a pathway connection lot from Quenzer. I think there was some question about the -- the amount of roadway that's being dedicated to ACHD. ACHD's condition number one states that there is 40 feet of right of way dedication, versus the standard 48 that you would see on this. Our understanding is that the applicant has agreed to put the sidewalk in part of the landscaped lots, so, therefore, they are not requiring the extra eight feet of dedication. And I think I'll end staff's presentation there and ask if there is any specific questions you have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4,2005 Page 15 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have the landscape plan at the time, is that what you stated, Anna? Canning: The landscape plan that you have is the one that I -- it's the old one, it's -- you should have one that -- like this in your packet, so you can see where -- where they have moved the road, there is going to be some change in these landscape areas here and I believe this one is still there, this is that connection. And, then, the buffers down here would still be there. Just to kind of follow that up a little bit, are you anticipating the same landscaping, just going to be somewhat moved over to the other side of the street and, then, basically, then, we are in a conflict with the other owners to subdivide their property if there is landscaping between their property and the street; right? Canning: We are not anticipating a landscape buffer -- as the right of way goes immediately to there, so there is only two feet between the edge of right of way and the sidewalk. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Canning: So, as I said, the current plan has six percent. If the applicant has thought about the new landscape plan, they probably should share that with you, because I'm not confident that they could meet six percent with their current plan. Zaremba: Back on your subject of right of way dedication, just a question on the staff report. Exhibit D -- I don't see a page number, but it's number one annexation -- well, it must be the first page of Exhibit D, annexation findings, paragraph D, the bottom, based on ACHD long range 20-30 proposal, Ustick Road is anticipated to be a three lane roadway at this point; is that correct? I thought everything I had seen said five lanes. And, actually, it's a little scary if it's three. It would justify five lane right now. Borup: I thought I had read somewhere where it -- yeah. It was five and, then, one of the last -- one of their last reports went back to three and I never did understand why. Zaremba: Have to watch them every minute. Borup: Well, I don't know. I just remember reading that and I was -- I couldn't remember who I was talking to and said, well, why is it saying three, I thought it was five previously. But you would know more -- you should know more about that. Zaremba: All of Ustick Road through Meridian is going to be five lanes. Borup: That's what it was several years ago. Zaremba: Yeah. It would worry me if it's three lane. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I can't imagine it not being five, especially if there is an interstate or the highway -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 16 of 57 Canning: Five lanes would appear to be correct. Zaremba: Okay. So, the 40 feet of dedication on this side is still okay for five lane, though, right? If they are doing the sidewalk on this application. Canning: That's my understanding. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And that's what the ACHD report does say, dedicate 40 feet. Zaremba: All right. Then, I had, actually, a comment that -- just a couple of typos. Under conditions of approval, this is Exhibit B, on 1. 1. 3 prior to the city engineer's signature of a final plat -- and I would take out the word containing a final plat all structures not contained on a designated lot shall be removed. So, the word containing is kind in there twice. Then, under 1. 1. 4 it says: The following should be included in a revised landscape plan prior to final plat. The next five items, items 1. 1. 5 through 1. 1. 9, are, actually, the sub bullets for that sentence. If that makes sense. And, then, on the next page, item 1. 1. 14, maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility -- it says Bellingham, but it should be of the Hollybrook Park homeowners association. Those are just minor typos. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? Borup: I just remembered where I read the three lane. It was in this report a month ago. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that we are not signaling to ACHD that we have any comfort with a three-lane road. Borup: Yeah. I was surprised at that at the time. Zaremba: It should be five lane. And through Steve Siddoway and the Meridian Transportation Task Force, I think we will take a look at that and make sure it is five lane. Okay. We are ready, then, for the applicant, I believe. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the developer of the Hollybrook Subdivision. I want to thank staff for their report and presentation. They are correct, this is a strange shaped piece of property to try to coordinate with three existing subdivisions and stub streets and try to come up with a development pattern that kind of meets every -- everyone's needs and wants. Our main reason that, obviously, for the several delays to get to this point was working with the highway district on the connection to Ustick Road and when we started out that process, it was mainly at the request of the folks within the Weaver Subdivision off of Curt Lane, because if we did not get that connection out to Ustick Road, our traffic was going to be forced to go to Curt Lane, which was a Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 17 of 57 substandard -- it was public -- a public road, but it was a substandard public road. We tried to work with the neighbors and, ultimately, they got the highway district to reason that this was a proper connection, it does line up with the street across Ustick Road. And, then, after going through that process, some more -- some more comments came up through staff and everything and we ended up redesigning some more of the subdivision to help the connections to Sundance and to Heritage and that's why we had some of those islands come into play. We also have agreed to do a detached sidewalk along this main road connecting Heritage with Sundance. Heritage does have detached sidewalks and Sundance does not, so we will transition at this point -- I think this is it. Up there in the northwest corner of the subdivision. With regards to the development itself, this is a planned unit development. We are asking for an R-8 zone, but this is consistent with how Heritage Commons and Sundance was developed and approved by the city, with a compatible density. But the main focus is the smaller patio home lots in the center of the subdivision. And trying to make those fit with that -- with that roadway and I think we have done a good job. We did lose a couple lots by redesigning this. I think we have definitely choked this down a number of places and provided islands that should help slow down traffic going north and south. To answer staff's question, we do have the six percent open space in the new design and she has that as a condition of approval that we resubmit that revised landscape plan and we will do that. To address the ACHD question or to confirm that, Ustick Road is proposed as a five lane -- future five-lane roadway and we are dedicating that 40 feet and they are receptive of that. So, that's all I have right now. I'll wait in rebuttal and probably address some of the neighbor's questions and concerns and I'll stand for any questions you have right now. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? You mentioned that you have talked to some of the neighbors. Did you actually hold a neighborhood meeting? Nickel: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Okay. Hold it down. Nickel: Yeah. We did. We had a neighborhood meeting in this building right here and I -- it was a long time ago, maybe some of them forgot, but I don't think Commissioner Rohm would forgive me if I didn't have a neighborhood meeting on my development. So, we did. And, then, additionally, I met with some of the neighbors off of Curt when we were going in front of ACHD, so we have had a couple of chances to meet with some of the neighbors, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Moe: Not right now. Zaremba: All right. thank you. We will go through our list of people signed up. One thing I failed to mention when I was talking about procedure. If there is a spokesman for a group of you -- and an example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, we do allow that person ten minutes, under the assumption that the rest of Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 18 of 57 the people are giving their time to that person. So, if you have somebody who is a spokesman, we allow ten minutes for that. Let me ask first is there anybody who is a spokesman for the group. Sir, if you would come forward. Start with your name and address, please. Putnam: My name is Hal Putnam. I live at 3452 Curt Drive. Commissioner Zaremba, appreciate the opportunity to be here. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Oh. Moe: I guess I -- one thing I would like to know is who is he representing in the audience, so that we can -- Zaremba: For those that are here, would you raise your hand for just a moment, please. Quite a few. Okay. Even if you have signed up, I will call your name and if you will just say that Mr. Putnam has spoke for you, we will appreciate that. Putnam: I have been chosen to be the primary -- Zaremba: You have been chosen and we appreciate that. Putnam: Chosen to speak for the residents of Weaver Acres, which is -- bring up the slide -- one back. Weaver Acres area. This is a subdivision that has been in existence since the mid 70s. Most of the people that live in this subdivision have been there on an average of 20 to 30 years and they are all one-acre lots. We have some real concerns with this development and I'm going to go through some of them and hope that I can touch on all of them. We presented our argument with ACHD approximately three weeks ago, four weeks ago, in regards to the traffic concerns with the original development where it was going to connect at Washaki and come down to just before Ustick and cut to Curt Drive and there was maybe a misleading intentional-unintentional count that was given to -- a trip count that was given to Ada County Highway District that totally underrepresented the total count that would be using this road. When we made our presentation to Ada County Highway District, they agreed with us. They did agree that the -- there would be a substantial amount of traffic on that road that would run from Washaki out to Ustick Road. We estimate at best or at minimum there will be 1,500 -- 14 to 15 hundred trips per day. With that understanding, Ada County Highway District requested that -- that the road have sidewalks on both sides, have some calmers, that it did connect directly to Ustick. I thought somebody said something to me. That it did have some calmers. It was our understanding that those calmers would be in the form of islands and not where the curvature took place, which was in the original plan that was presented to ACHD. Not the original plan, but the revised plan, those curves at the end of Hollybrook Road were already there. The speed calmers have been placed within those curves. They will not, in our opinion, slow the traffic down on a stretch of road -- straight stretch of road that's going to be approximately 900 Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 19 of 57 feet long, with the amount of traffic we feel that that will be a hazard, not only to those people who are living along that road, but anybody that travels and kids that may play in the area. There is one major -- two major bus stops right on Ustick Road very close to these areas. And you look at this development and look where Washaki comes in both from Sundance and Heritage, where that connection is going to make, you will have all the homes within the new development that will utilize that road, plus -- and one of the neighbors -- or one of our neighbors from Sundance and Heritage will also confirm that they will use that road. So, you're looking at all the homes that kind of surround that new development. When you look at the number of turns they have to make out -- make to get out to Locust Grove or out to Meridian Road, they are going to take that straight shot to Ustick and some of our neighbors from those other subdivisions will confirm that that's what they plan on doing if this development goes through like that. We don't feel that the pinchers -- or this week was the first time we have seen that speed calming issue in the form of pinchers, but that's really not going to slow the traffic, that's just going to make it harder for somebody to park on the street right there. Kind of gather my notes here. When the Sundance Subdivision went in and the Heritage Subdivision went in and were zoned at R-8, there was sufficient buffer between the R-1 zoning that our subdivision has and those subdivisions, because it was blank or bare land. We oppose this development being zoned as R-8. We feel that it is in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan and to the current codes and even the staff has recommended that these lots be smaller than are required. We don't feel that that provides enough buffer between an existing well-established R-1 zone area to go straight to an R-8 zoning. At a minimum we would request that that be zoned as R-4. That will alleviate some of the traffic and will create a buffer and proper transition between urban areas or zoning and development. I guess, in conclusion, we'd just like to say that we do -- in Weaver Acres we do oppose this development being zoned as R- 8 for the reasons that I just mentioned. It is being requested by the developer that they even get to sidestep some of the required dimensions to allow them to put those homes -- very small lots along the back of those acres. There is nobody that lives on those acres at this point that has made any indication that they plan on developing or selling a portion of that land in the future for future development. We have been there a long time, we like those acres, and, as I indicated, most of the average resident has lived there 20 to 30 years, as I'm sure some of them will testify to. We do realize that we can't stop development. We do request that it be done in a smooth transition and kind of going along with what the lady said from EI Gato that because we are long time residents this has been a little tough for us to handle sometimes. We are coping, but we aren't ready for transitional small homes to be built right up against our one-acre lots. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Putnam, you did not indicate on this speed control what were you -- do you have an alternative idea? Putnam: It's our belief that it was Ada County Highway -- the ACHD's desire that those islands be placed along those -- that road -- that straight stretch of road, not at the end. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 20 of 57 When the presentation was made they were talking about approximately 800 to 1,000 feet of road that was a straight shot and we are still dealing with 900 feet that's a straight shot and pinchers are going to do nothing more than prohibit parking cars there. It's not going to slow traffic down. It's still a straight shot. Those islands that you're looking at on that development are at the end of the road. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Putnam: It's not going to slow traffic down once they hit that straight shot and that was the concern that ACHD had. We have not gotten back together as a group of neighbors to determine whether we want to re-address this with ACHD and find out exactly what the minutes were said, because our understanding, particularly Committee Member Bivens, he didn't want speed bumps and speed calmers that wouldn't slow the traffic down in that stretch. So, we feel that maybe his staff has misrepresented -- or the staff misrepresented what they were trying to get at in slowing that traffic down. Because there will be a lot of traffic there. Newton-Huckabay: No, I don't disagree. But I can see that moving the land -- the islands on the ends -- maybe an island in the middle, jog off or something. They call that a traffic bump out? Zaremba: Either a bulb out or -- Newton-Huckabay: Bulb out? Zaremba: Yeah. Putnam: And that's what we thought their intent was, was that it would -- and, in fact, they actually indicated a minimum of two in that stretch of road. That was our understanding. Not at the end of those roads. Because the curves are going to slow traffic down. Zaremba: The curves should be -- serve as a calming effect. Putnam: You don't see bump outs or islands to slow the traffic down where the curves are at. And this was the plan -- or I should say the plan minus the islands was the one that was presented to ACHD, minus the islands and the pinchers. Newton-Huckabay: On the west side -- or this -- Putnam: With the road on the east land -- on the east side. Yes. That's what they were looking at. They were looking at the curve coming in on Washaki, the curve coming in off of Ustick, with the road running up the west side -- or, excuse me, the east side, and it being a straight shot with no islands or pinchers. So, we have two major concerns. Again, to bring my -- come to a conclusion here. We have a real concern with the traffic and we have a real concern with the proper zoning, creating a gradual transition from R- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4,2005 Page 21 of 57 1 to R-8 -- from R-1 to R-4 to R-8. As you can see on -- just to the east of us, we still have RUT. Those are five-acre lots and to the east of that are four lots. So, I'll stand for any other questions. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Putnam: Thank you, Commissioner, Members of the Commission. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of staff real quick? Zaremba: This is a good time. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a picture of this kind of overlay with the development around it? The lot? We don't always -- occasionally we have had that. This proposed - Canning: Oh, how this fits in there? No, we don't. Newton-Huckabay: Could you go back to the one you were just on? I can if Craig does it. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. What approximately -- just because this leaves me the ability to look at this and guess -- would you say these size lots or these are here? Are those about -- Canning: Well, the current proposal has one, two, three -- the same number of lots there and those are between seven and ten thousand square feet. So, I'm guessing that those up here are around 8,000 square feet. Newton-Huckabay: Eight thousand square feet. Okay. Borup: Probably closer to seven. Newton-Huckabay: Seven. Canning: Trying to catch the eye of the developer, but he's sitting in his easy chair. In Quenzer Commons those lots are around 8,000 square feet? Yeah. We got an affirmative nod. And, then, the ones on here you can see that they are in depth -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Canning: -- but they look to be about the same on average. These might be closer to nine or ten thousand. AbOut 60 by 120 is our guess. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 22 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. When I mentioned spokesman, I thought I saw some people, in addition to Mr. Putnam, light up. Are there spokesmen for the other subdivisions around? I will call every name on the list, but if there is somebody that's being a spokesman for a different group -- if you'd identify yourself and, then, we will ask who you are speaking for. Kosloski: Be glad to. My name is Joseph Kosloski and I live on 480 East Moskey in Sundance Subdivision and I guess I represent my Sundance -- Zaremba: Could we see a show of hands of people for whom he is speaking? Thank you. Okay. Kosloski: I'd like to, first of all, just put my vote in favor of the things that Mr. Putnam has already shared, in that we do feel the same -- the same as he does. My biggest concern -- and our biggest concern -- most of us in the Sundance Subdivision have young children where it's kind of a -- more of a starter community and what's going to happen here is -- and, really, our concerns aren't with the wider sections of land, you know, those are adequate and there is going to be adequate streets for the development on the south and on the north. But the concern, really, is with that narrow stretch of land right there. I live kind of in the north -- well, my backyard will be the second lot from the north of there. Moe: You have a pointer there. Kosloski: Oh, I do. Okay. If I can figure out how to make it work. This is where I live right here and I can tell you that all the people that I live around on this side of the street and, really, all the way to here are going to be using this street. The way it is right now, I come out here to Ustick Road and take Eagle to get into Boise to go to work and I see the same cars, I see the same cars coming home. I guarantee that I'm going to use that straight stretch of road and I consider myself a good driver and I know I'm going to speed on that straightaway and I guarantee that most people are. And so my -- really, my concern is that -- and that's what was presented. I went to the Ada County meeting as well and the safety issues were the biggest concern that was discussed. The islands were discussed and, like Mr. Putnam, it was my understanding, at least from sitting there and participating, that those islands were going to be for the straight stretch of road and not in the middle of the curve, because, like you said, the curve is already somewhat of a traffic calming measure in itself. So, I believe that by adding those islands in the straight stretch you're going to make a safer road. Another thing that -- going along with safety is the amount of kids. It's not just drivers like me that are going to use this straight stretch to get out to the highway, but it's going to be our kids and it's going to be kids on bikes and it's going to be kids walking and they -- well, the amenities that they mention was this -- they will hook it up here, so not only do we have my kids and these guys' kids and all these kids, but he's opened the way for the kids right here to have a straight access down to this road and I really think that because there is going to be so much foot traffic that's going to take this, not to mention the 1,400 cars or so that we added up, you just got to make this a safe road. And it's a -- roughly a quarter Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 23 of 57 mile straight. I just think that the islands would be a good -- a good start. Another thing would be to really just enforce the development regulations that are already on the books and what that will do is kind of force the developer to make that what it really is going to be and that's access into a subdivision. Then you could have plenty of road for a nice wide road. You have room for sidewalks on both sides, landscaping on both sides, I just think that would be -- that would be the kind of safety measure that most people would be happy with and that road would end up being suitable for the county use that it's really going to become and that's the way that we -- that's what we have discussed. Look at my notes here. I'd just like to see that -- you know, the safety issues be brought forth. Because what's going to happen is if they are not addressed now, you're going to have a problem in the future where you're going to have houses with about 15 feet of driveway backing onto a narrow road that's already going to have a lot of traffic on it and it's just going to be a mess. And that, in itself, is going push down those property values there. You're going to have people moving out, because it's such a pain to get out of their house and, then, you know, no body's going to buy those places after that. But that's our concerns there and I'd sit for any questions that anybody has. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Kosloski -- I tried to spell it here, but I -- Kosloski: That will throw you off. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think that's probably what I did. So, are you -- you're suggesting, then, that you think they should lose all those lots on that road? Kosloski: I think that just -- you enforce the development regulations that are on the book and that's what they will have to do, because, then -- I don't know if you have looked at other main entrances into subdivisions, I know particularly the one coming into Sundance right there on Ustick -- right here. And there is another one coming into Sundance off of Meridian Road and you're dealing with a very wide road. I don't know how wide it is, but there is an island in the middle on both sides. There is a lot of landscape and it's a nice entryway into a subdivision that has a lot of traffic. And this right here is really going to serve the same function. It's going to be the main access for -- like we discussed. All the people that already live here, as well as everybody that's going to come in off of Washaki. You got the people in Heritage Commons here that don't want to make a million turns to get out to Locust Grove. You have got the people in Sundance that feel the same way. And not to mention, like I say, the kids. It's just going to be a -- it's going to be a busy street and I think we should be wise now and plan for it accordingly. You know, one thing that -- I understand the way that, you know, development works and we have to try to accommodate the best use for the land, but, Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4,2005 Page 24 of 57 you know, variances are set up, really, to kind of bring some common sense into development and the right to enforce the regulations if they are not. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask if we have any other spokesmen? Okay. I don't see anybody moving, so let me call the list and if you have not been spoken for, please, come forward. If you have and agree with what's been said, I'd appreciate if you would just make that comment. Dana Colstad. Colstad: Dana Colstad, 3540 North Curt Drive, and I agree with what Hal Putnam has stated. Zaremba: Thank you. Dennis Bingaman. Bingaman: Dennis Bingaman. 3387 North Curt Drive and I agree with what Hal Putnam has said. Zaremba: Thank you. Dana Bingaman. Newton-Huckabay: Do they all need to come up or can they agree from the audience? D. Bingaman: Dana Bingaman and I agree also with what the gentlemen have said. I'm on 3387 North Curt. And I have a couple things to add, though. Or a couple concerns. With the road that's going into North Curt Drive, I would oppose that road going into that neighborhood. I live within Weaver Acres and I have children -- we haven't been there 20 years, but I have been there for over ten years, so I'm one of the newer people in the neighborhood. But our children are in there and we don't have good lighting in there, we are not a -- we are not like the newer subdivision with the street lights within that neighborhood and if people don't make the right turn when they come in and they are in our neighborhood in the evening or even during the daytime, I have children running around -- it's a great neighborhood, we really love our neighborhood, we love the privacy of it, and we love that it's a safe place. And I think that would take away the safety of it with a road entering into our subdivision. One other thing, just kind of thinking outside the box here for a minute. With a lot of the concerns with that road, that straight road going there, one suggestion I'm thinking is could you make a common area in the middle of that road, so that the road doesn't go all the way through. You have a road that goes up through it without housing and houses up above, but a common area that stops any traffic that goes all the way through. Just a crazy thought. Maybe like a cul-de-sac, kind of. I believe there is some common areas within that plan, isn't there? I'm saying a common area that wouldn't make a road go all the way through there. It would stop that. Borup: Well, it wouldn't need to be a common area, it would just be a cul-de-sac with houses there. The houses there would stop the road from going through. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 25 of 57 D. Bingaman: That would be good, too. But I totally disagree with the road coming into my subdivision. I don't see the purpose of that. If someone could explain the purpose of that, I would really appreciate it, the need for that road. Zaremba: We will ask the applicant. I'm sure it's a hold over from when they did not think they would have a direct connection to Ustick, so that's a good question to ask. D. Bingaman: So, with the direct road, does that road need to be there? Zaremba: We will ask that question of the applicant. D. Bingaman: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Mary Westby. You're welcome to just raise your hand at your seat and say that you have been spoken for. You don't necessarily have to come all the way up. Westby: I should have thought of that. Mary Westby, 3373 Curt and I agree with Hal Putnam and with what Dana also said. Zaremba Great. Thank you. Okay. Venicia Morrison. Okay. She is agreeing with the previous spokesman. Joann Sizmick? Is that right? It's -- I know it starts with an S. I'm not sure what follows it. It apparently ends with a K. Okay. She is in agreement with what's been said. Thank you. You actually -- if you're just responding by raising your hand, you don't actually need to give your address and everything. If you do have something to add, then, I do ask that you come up to the microphone. But just -- just kind of wave at me if you don't need to add anything. Christy Bollingberg. Bollingberg: Christy Bollingberg, 3602 North Weston Way. I'm in the Sundance Subdivision. And I guess the only thing that I wanted to add or disagree with is that if there was a neighborhood meeting that took place, I did not receive notification and I don't believe anybody in our subdivision did receive notification. And I also did not receive the second notification that this meeting had been scheduled for this evening. I would have not known about it, if my neighbors had not informed me of it, and I just wanted to reiterate that I am concerned about the addition of the traffic that will be added by opening up the road into our subdivision. Zaremba: Thank you. And, then, you will all have to forgive me, I believe it's Alisa -- is it Neilgard? Something similar to that? When we get to the end, if I have failed to call your name and you think you signed up, I will ask you again. Neberhitch: Is it Allison Neberhitch? Zaremba: It could very well be. Allison Neberhitch. Moe: You were close. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 26 of 57 Zaremba: Do you have anything to add? Neberhitch: No. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. She's agreeing with what's been said. Kathie Sherna. Shayna. Okay. She agrees with what's been said. Letha Quinn. Agreeing with what's been said. Okay. I've got to catch up here for a minute. Joe -- first name is Joe and the last name starts with an L. Probably -- okay. He's supporting what's been said. Okay. It could be Ed -- I can't read the last -- the rest of it. It looks like a short name, three or four letters. Does that apply to anybody? Okay. I'm not identifying who that is. Mary Jane Amey. She's agreeing with what's been said. Okay. Richard -- it could be Whitesell or Woodside. Weedenhaf. Richard Weedenhaf. If you would come to the microphone if you have anything to add, please. Weedenhaf: Richard Weedenhaf. I live at 3479 North Curt. And I agree with both gentlemen. My concerns are that back section with the density of the housing and how important it is to keep perspective on how wide that street should be and I have measured back there and it seems to me from their fence to my fence there is 125 feet. You would be pushing that. And for a wide enough road and the footage for the housing, I'm not sure how that can be done. And for safety sake and for the future of the Ustick widening, I think it would be better to tone down the density of the housing back there and do some landscaping, make it a nice area and for the kids and everything. And as far as that Curt Drive cut in right there, all these kids go down to the bus in the morning and that coming out, I know darn well that people don't look both ways half the time, they look to the left, and they just turn and those kids are coming, you know, back home or something, we are really concerned about that and -- Zaremba: Thank you. Weedenhaf: That pretty well covers it. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Flo Whittaker. She's agreeing with what's been said. Okay. Tony Peyer -- or it might be Perk. Okay. Agreeing with what's been said. And Jody Perk. Agreeing with what's been said. Michael B. Morrison. Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. The last time I stood before this board it was in regards to AZ 05-012 and four, which happen to be here tonight also. At that time you told the developer to go back and redo it, because of the interface between existing neighborhoods and developments. That's all we are asking for now. Mr. Zaremba -- I'm sorry with your last name. Zaremba: Zaremba. Morrison: Mr. Zaremba has made a comment, one of the goals of Planning and Zoning and one of your jobs was to have the least amount of impact on existing neighborhoods. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 27 of 57 I do appreciate that comment, because it does apply tonight. Okay. If the developer had made these changes willingly and stuff, it wouldn't have been such of an issue. In talking with us nothing much happened. Ada County Highway told them to go back and make these changes. It wasn't willingly. They tried to push it through without it. I had also attended those meetings. Okay. If the developer had come in and taken that narrow strip and made a play area and stuff for the kids, safety wouldn't be an issue, housing wouldn't be an issue. The request for small lot sizes wouldn't be an issue, because they would have play areas, much safer for kids, okay? One of the Commission's comments and stuff at the previous ordinances that they were trying to get through, was not to create further issues. Okay. With the straight stretch down there, everyone said they are going to use them, okay? I see no reason to make the lot sizes smaller. I have multiple rental properties, okay? One of the things I look for is safety and lot size. Why would I want to buy a small house on a busy street, they are going to turn into rentals, property value will go down, I think that is one of the main concerns of the people on -- in Sundance and stuff is the transients coming in and out. The property values go down. Why would you want to buy a house and your property values go down. Okay? I don't think the developer has done a good job. Most of the information that we get has been less than stand up as far as I'm concerned. Every time we come to one of these meetings something is said and it's like that's not what we were told, that's not what we understood. Okay. I think that pretty much covers it. Do you have any question? Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you very much. Morrison: Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Jan Brockdale? Brockett. That could very well be it. Yes. Thank you. Brockett: My name is Jan Brockett and I live at 3425 Curt Drive and I'm one of the lots that backs up to that road. I'm the one, two, three -- third long narrow lot there. It backs right up to that narrow strip. Okay. I have lived there for 30 years. It's been open and farmland and I'm not against development, I'm not against our neighbor selling that piece of property and getting their retirement from it. I'm not. But there are too many -- there is too much trying to be crammed into that one little strip. I have lived in that little - - I have lived in this area, I know how big that strip is. With all those homes bordering that long narrow strip, it's going to be nothing but a mess. How are those people going to get out of their driveways? They are going to back out. And where are they going to back out to? Right in the middle of that street. So, there is traffic and, if I'm wrong, I think there was 15 or 16 homes backing out into that street. It's just not going to work. There is too much being put into such a small space. That's alii have. Zaremba: Thank you. Kelly Beeman. Beeman: Kelly Beeman. I live at 3724 North Legacy Woods Avenue and -- go back. It's right -- that lot right there. Our concern -- and I don't speak for a group. Our concern is the entrance to this subdivision from Washaki. And we have got a further Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 28 of 57 concern, which is a long-term issue, I will guarantee you my wife and I will -- rather than turning left on Washaki and going out onto Locust -- North Locust Grove, will turn right on Washaki, go straight down through this, and onto Ustick Road. Again, I don't know exactly what the size of that small strip is, but it certainly appears to be questionable. I have never been aware of a neighborhood meeting. And the only reason I came tonight was a great big red and white sign put at the end of the road right now, which is blocked right here, and it appears to have been put by Ada County Highway District. And so that's the only reason I came tonight. A longer-term concern in our subdivision is right now most of the people up here -- is this Sundance? Is that the name of the subdivision? Okay. Many many residents of Sundance come through Heritage Commons, turn right on North Locust Grove, and, then, turn left into that. And, then, it even gets worse. As you go north into Copper Canyon -- Copper Basin, I think as time goes on that North Locust Grove -- or our street, Heritage Commons, North Heritage Commons, is going to become very very busy and this only further complicates it, because of the Washaki connection within -- people from the other subdivisions, rather than going out, will simply turn left, go through that Washaki -- onto Washaki and straight down to Ustick. So, for that reason I oppose this proposal. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much. Okay. That is pretty much all the names that have signed up. The only one I'm missing, if you signed up and the first initial of your first name is an E and I didn't call you, you are the name I'm missing. Is that you, sir? If you have something to add, please, come to the -- Spirk: Yes, I do. And I think it's really -- well, excuse me. Let me, first of all, introduce myself. I'm Paul Spirk. I live at 3544 Curt Drive. Zaremba: Would you say your name again, please? Spirk: Paul Spirk. S-p-i-r-k. Zaremba: Not the one I'm looking for, but you're welcome to speak. Spirk: Okay. I -- one of the things I wanted to mention has to do with our restrictive covenants in Curt Drive and Weaver Acres and the restrictive covenants are on the records for 40 years. Well, that's 11 years more before they can make any changes and that affects Weaver Acres, because the fact that they are cutting a road into that subdivision. So, we need to check on that to see what the restrictive covenants apply to Weaver Acres in reference to a road cutting into Curt Drive. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. One thing we need to clarify, cities do not enforce restrictive covenants or CC&Rs, that's a legal issue among the property owners to enforce against each other and the cities don't take a part of that. Spirk: Yeah, but you need to be aware of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 29 of 57 Zaremba: We try to be aware of them, but we are not responsible for them. I'd like to find the person whose first initial is E that hasn't come up. Okay. Let me go on. And the meeting is open to those who did not sign up as well. And we will now go through some of those. You do need to identify yourself, please. Glass: My name is Julie Glass. I live at 3306 North Weston in Sundance. I apologize I was late, so I didn't sign up. My concern is not only just the road going through, but those are small small homes. They are asking to reduce the space of the size of the lots by over 2,000 square feet and they are going to have small driveways and you're going to have a lot of rentals for sure. Those people are going to park on the street and that street's already narrower than it's supposed to be. So, if they do what they propose, you're going to have all kinds of hazards, people parking there, the kids driving there, too many cars going down the road, as small as it is, the whole thing is just going to end up being a big mess. Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask -- before I ask for more speakers, let me ask staff -- that narrow section across this middle throat, which is drawing a lot of attention, if I'm interpreting the preliminary plat correctly, the lot depths are 80 to 81 feet and, then, the street section is like 36 feet, so we are -- Borup: Forty, I believe. Zaremba: Forty. So, that whole section is only like 120 feet -- somebody said he paced it at 125, but it looks like it's a skimpy 125. Canning: One hundred twenty-one, it would appear. Zaremba: Something like that. I just wanted to confirm that, because it's been part of the discussion. Canning: They have 33 foot back of curb to back of curb and a 40 foot right of way, so it's 40 plus the 81. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Again, people who didn't sign up, if you have something to add. sir. Come forward. Martin: Shawn Martin, 3620 North Weston Way. If you could go back to the preliminary plat. My concern -- my general concern is streets that are this long, 1,400 foot, approximately, in length, that connect directly to Ustick Road, normally are residential collectors with no front-on housing. For instance, you know, the Sundance is on the one side and Heritage Commons, even Arrow Way on the south side of Ustick has the same principle with no front-on housing. They have attempted to do what the Ada County Highway District has told them to do. However, as the gentleman said, you know, you really don't need the traffic islands on the curves themselves. The intention was more for along on that straight piece of land or somewhere along there. You can't really get a good close up of the islands from there, but the first island as you come in it Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 30 of 57 really almost forces you into the curve, more so than on that lower right-hand. There is really no tangency between the end of the island and where the road goes. Really, the only thing it's going to cause some possible accidents is forcing people into the curve as they go around there. One of the concerns of the Sundance residents from the beginning was putting the road next to them. They did put it to the other side. However, as you see at the end of it they have put it back to the Sundance side for the last couple of people along Weston, which one of them would still have a road behind them. The other problems I see are the island on Washaki, the first one coming from Heritage Commons, you can see the -- people just drive around the island. And the ACHD report had one traffic calmer for the Heritage Commons side, one for Sundance side is how it was written. The second one, as you see -- I don't know how that does anything for the Sundance people. It helps, you know, people who are in Heritage Commons will come down, they will turn left, they'll go by three islands, and people turning from Sundance, they have no island to go around, except for one that's come down just right at the very end of Arrowwood Way. You can't really see it on here either, but the road does wind back to Washaki at the very tip. The roadway doesn't have any -- basically, it's coming in at an angle, which will also create some problems trying to get in and out of there as far seeing really need of about a 3D-foot tangency according to ACHD regulations at the intersection. That's really alii have. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to speak? All right. Thank you. We will ask the applicant to come back up and respond to issues that have been raised, please. Nickel: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the neighbors' comments. ACHD, we did -- Canning: Shawn, hold on for a second Zaremba: Getting too much feedback from the microphone. Nickel: Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. We were told by ACHD to provide two to three calming devices along that stretch -- north-south stretch. We did work with their staff and came up with those two chokers, in addition to those islands. Islands were, actually, optional, they gave the opportunity -- the choice whether we wanted to put those in or not and we chose to put them in just more -- thinking that it was going to be more of a traffic calming. Obviously, the final design will have to go through ACHD for approval and if they determine that those islands on the north and south are not safe or don't meet their policy, we will not be able to build them. But they focused on those two chokers, which will have landscaping as they choke in. They will have two trees. And so that was the traffic calming that they approved. We did take that back per their request. My engineer worked with their staff and that's what they came up with. So, the highway district has made that decision on that -- on that roadway. And just to clarify, because I think it's kind of being misunderstood, that is a full 33-foot road section, which is the same street section that's in most of the subdivisions surrounding this property. The thing that's been reduced is the right of way. It will still have sidewalk on both sides Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 31 of 57 of that road and it will be a 33 foot wide paved surface. So, we are not reducing the travel way, we have reduced the right of way within that -- within that strip. Now, the lots themselves are going to 80 foot in depth, but we are not asking for any reduction in setbacks through the PD. So, we are still going to have a 15-foot rear, five foot side, and a 15 foot front yard setback, so -- Borup: Fifteen to the house, 20 to the garage. Nickel: That is correct. Borup: So, you have a 20-foot driveway. Nickel: Fifteen to the living area and 20 to the garage. So, you will not have cars blocking the sidewalk. ACHD determined that was not to be built -- or necessary as a collector street. They did insist that that be connected north to south, otherwise, we would have proposed a cul-de-sac with lots and we wouldn't have connected it through. Same goes for the Curt access. That's a requirement of ACHD. They want interconnectivity -- they want interconnectivity to subdivisions. If the folks would like to go back, I will go back with them and we can try to get that removed. But ACHD is requiring those connections. So, I tried to help the neighbors go through and get the access onto Ustick to try to calm some of the traffic on Curt. Apparently I -- apparently my -- it wasn't appreciated, so that's fine. As far as the speed -- you know, some people saying they are going to speed down that road, well, that road's going to need to be connected regardless if those houses are there or not. Again, ACHD is going to require that connection north and south. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, again, I did have a neighborhood meeting. I had 21 people show up to this room. I got the list from the city, so it's the same list that goes out to all the neighbors for this meeting. So, I just want to confirm that. And, again, the request for reduction in lot sizes is consistent with what has been approved in the subdivisions -- the three subdivisions that surround it -- that are surrounding this site, which I will also ask for an R-8 with a PD and those did have the ability -- I know that Heritage Commons did reduce some of their lots within their -- within their development through that PD process. So, we are not asking for something that's out of the ordinary. We are providing six percent open space. We do have a pathway connection into Heritage Commons. I think the real issue is that middle area and, again, we are reducing the -- we are asking for a 50 foot wide width and the reduction in the depth to 80 feet and that's still plenty of room to put a full size house and meet the setbacks. So, that's alii have. I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have some. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 32 of 57 Borup: And I don't know if you could answer this or staff, but I want to explore the idea of a cul-de-sac on that narrow strip. You said you did talk to ACHD? And is there is maximum length in their requirements on a road that terminates with a cul-de-sac? Nickel: Oh, it would be probably a city requirement. A fire department requirement, more than anything else. Borup: Okay. Nickel: 'lIlet Anna address that. Borup: Two hundred and fifty feet is within -- Canning: I believe our standard is no cul-de-sac can be longer than 450 feet. Borup: Okay. That would be well within -- like you say, they did pursue that with ACHD on having a cul-de-sac or -- Nickel: No, we did not address that. But they did say they wanted the interconnectivity. Borup: Well, I know they always want interconnectivity and I certainly agree with you there. You know, we are only talking about 56 lots at this point here total. Nickel: Correct. Borup: It looks to me like there is enough access with the other roads coming from the north and the south that a cul-de-sac could be feasible. Nickel: Again, I would have no problem going back to ACHD and requesting that. We were told initially they want interconnectivity. So, that would be up to them to make that determination. Newton-Huckabay: That's what our report says, that ACHD is -- wants the Curt Drive connectivity in the report and, then, the connectivity to Ustick, so -- but I have to agree with you. Borup: Well, that would seem to certainly answer the majority of the concerns for the neighbors. You may lose a lot or two, I don't know, but, you know, it would have to be worked out in the design, but -- Nickel: I'm not as worried about that as much as I am the highway district. Borup: Your cul-de-sacs go down and probably have two lots backing against each at the ends and those would be a hundred or more apart. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 33 of 57 Nickel: Right. It does sound like that would -- that would satisfy a lot of the neighborhoods' concerns if that street didn't go through. I don't know what we want to propose, because we have already gone through ACHD and they have already made their decision. I hate to table it again and have to bring everybody back. You know, we can -- I don't know what you want to propose here. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Can I ask for a second for a view that shows as much of this whole square mile as possible in orienting where this is in there? What I'm trying to -- okay. That shows Locust Grove to Meridian. The center point of that mile is about where the word Ustick Road is. Okay. This to the left of that. That's what I wanted to see. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: If -- if the applicant were to take it back to ACHD -- I believe this came up, but the original proposal they didn't want the connection to Ustick, so if the applicant comes back with a proposal for a cul-de-sac, the likelihood of them approving the connection to Ustick is pretty small. And I think we have heard a lot of testimony about how they didn't want traffic coming that way. I just -- I guess I just wanted the Commission to be aware of that and some of the public, that if those do go to cul-de-sacs, then, some of that will be coming out onto Curt Drive, more than likely. Zaremba: ACHD is going to want some trades here and there. Canning: Right. Zaremba: If they lose the access to Ustick. Canning: That's our -- Zaremba: The traffic count would go down considerably if it's cul-de-sacs. Canning: Right. Nickel: And there was talk -- Commissioners, there was talk that that would -- that would be a good location for a future traffic light if the two -- no. The one where we are Zaremba: You're speaking to east -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 34 of 57 Nickel: No one has promised there is going to be a traffic light there, but they -- there is a quarter mile section from Locust Grove -- or from Meridian and I guess that's -- but that's future consideration. Newton-Huckabay: It would stand to reason for me that down the road that this access here, Curt Drive, go away and, then, everybody would access here, if there is a light. Nickel: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: And that -- so, you wouldn't have access onto Ustick Road from Curt Drive anymore. Nickel: That was the discussion at some point with someone, I recall. Rohm: I guess my question, Shawn, would be do you have any kind of traffic calming alternatives that you would be willing to step forward with that would address the concerns that we have heard from all the other people in the audience? Do you have any ideas that might be acceptable to your developers? Nickel: I don't. Anything -- I think anything short of not connecting this north and south, which would be a major deterrent. Newton-Huckabay: Can I -- Mr. Chair? May I make a suggestion? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: My suggestion -- other than I have to tend to agree with Commissioner Borup that a cul-de-sac -- but, then, again, you do lose what some day is going to be, you know, a good flow through here. What about putting the islands down this road, doing some bump outs -- bulb out -- whatever the technical highway term is for that and maybe you would probably have to lose a couple lots in here, but I think you would -- that would calm traffic -- I know these -- this is similar to what's over in Cedar Springs -- is it Cedar Springs that's got the -- at the entrance. Yeah. And you, basically, have to stop, you know, to get around them, but -- I mean they do slow you way down there, but maybe some more island type things down the middle. Nickel: Commissioners, I initially thought the highway district -- that that's what they were referring to when we did go back, was to do islands and was, actually, surprised when they decided to go with the choker. So, I guess we could go back and relook at the possibility of putting the island in the middle that would, you know, act more of a roundabout, I guess. I mean we don't have room for a real roundabout there, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Nickel: But I think to answer your question, I think that's the only -- probably the only thing we could do. And I still don't know if that's going to satisfy the neighbors, having Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 35 of 57 that island -- it probably would be better than what we have proposed or what the highway district has approved, but -- Zaremba: Just pure logic to me would seem that it would make more sense to have the islands where the pinchers are and not have the pinchers and probably not have islands in the curves. That almost strikes me as potentially dangerous. I'm surprised at ACHD for -- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I guess for the sake of my developer, I guess we need to know where you're leaning. If you believe that you cannot approve or recommend approval of this, because of the -- that specific and you would like to make some recommendations to us, either as a condition or you would like us to bring it back and show, I think that's probably the proper way to do it. If your intent is to have us put an island or two in there, I guess that's what we need to -- where we need to head on this. And, then, we can go back and take a look at that and see if that's possible and if that will even do any good. Zaremba: Well, I think we are all understanding the struggle is this narrow strip of land and what does any developer do with 120 -- or 121 feet. The northern section and the southern section are pretty typical, but the struggle is this connecting strip in here. Nickel: And just one further thing, if you do decide to table this for two weeks or whatever to come back and show you that, maybe in your motion you could also put that in that time I can go back and address the issue of the cul-de-sacs with the highway district. Our appeal period is up and so we can't go back and -- to the commissioners, but we can at least talk to staff and see if they would be supportive of cutting that off. I already know the answer, but we can do that within that time frame, if that's what you'd like. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Personally, I would like to see a little common area, like right here and right here, and just bump the road out and so it's got a little bulge in it, so that you don't have that straight stretch through that whole area and I don't know that you would lose lots specifically, but you -- Borup: Sure, you would. Rohm: And you probably would. Moe: I guess what I would anticipate is you would lose a few lots and at that point, then, you are actually enlarging a few others, you know, to make some difference. I think some of these lots are fairly small. Maybe we could get a little bit of participation both ways, we get the islands in there and we lose a few lots and make the others a little larger and try and take care of a couple concerns here. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4. 2005 Page 36 of 57 Nickel: So, if I'm understanding you, 'more of a -- kind of a snake -- Rohm: Exactly. Because as long as you don't have that straight stretch the entire length, you're not going to be able to have that speed -- as much of a speed concern. Nickel: What thing I would again -- and staff would need to examine this, but you would lose the ability for the frontage on those. Just something to point out for future -- Rohm: It depends on how you position the -- as you see the lot lines running east and west, you could have a bump out where half of it is on one lot and half of it is on the other, so you still have a -- where the roadway actually is on the property line for a portion of each of those lots. Zaremba: If I'm interpreting the suggestion, there would be three sections where it pretty well stays where it is and two sections where it's maybe 20 feet away from the property line, so that there is -- Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: We are not talking about moving the whole road, we are talking about making two -- somebody called them snakes. Nickel: And this -- obviously, this line right here is permanent, that's where it's going to have to stay and, then, at that point I guess it could come up here a little more before it bends over. I don't know. My engineer will have to play with it and see if he can make it work. Newton-Huckabay: Well, Mr. Nickel, at this point it's awkward, it's a bad situation, but that would be the direction I would lean, is I wouldn't -- I would not vote in favor of this development as it stands today. And my only problem is with that long neck there. Although, I do feel cutting out Curt would have been a good idea, but I think that something like a snake or a traffic bulb out is a better -- Nickel: As opposed to have big island in the middle? Rohm: Right. Nickel: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: You know, either one of those would -- you know, you're talking about 400 feet -- was it 900 feet, approximately? A thousand? So, at the 500-foot mark, about? Moe: Eight fifty-two. Newton-Huckabay: Eight fifty-two? So, 426. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 37 of 57 Nickel: Yeah. I don't know if we have the ability to -- even to bulb that out in the middle and do a one way going around -- one way going the other way or not. I guess you need to make a decision as to, you know, how you want us to proceed and let us go back -- either let us go back or -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: A couple questions. Are you familiar with any of the ACHD studies on which is most effective on traffic calming? And I know the chokers work from the reports I have read. I don't know if a circle -- you know, a large bulb out, if it works better than the chokers, or they are about the same. Staff didn't mention anything on what's most effective. Nickel: I wasn't at the last meeting. They are the ones that made that recommendation for the chokers and it was their commission's instructions to slow down the traffic. Borup: Right. I know they do that. I mean I read the reports where they do that. Nickel: Yeah. Borup: I don't know which one -- which one works better than the other. There might be somebody in the audience that does. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I think the applicant's engineer is raising his hand. He may have some comment to this discussion. Can we have him come up? Zaremba: Well, let's ask a question. Would you, please, identify yourself. Erickson: My name is Ross Erickson. I'm the developer's engineer. I'm at 1854 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can speak towards kind of how those chokers came about. I met with ACHD development services and traffic and we looked at different alternatives as far as putting islands in there and the challenge is getting an efficient shift. In order to calm traffic with an island, you have to shift, you know, at least probably ten, eleven, twelve feet with each lane to get an effective measure and they felt that the chokers would be more effective in this application than trying to put islands in. The challenge is each time you try to swerve that road out and get -- you know, meet your radius and your tangent design requirements, you end up eating up -- you probably couldn't even fit two in there meeting the requirements with the length that we have, as far as trying to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 38 of 57 geometry for the roadway. So, their staff, actually, suggested that we put those in and landscape them with some trees. They said they have been effective in other developments and we ran with it, we thought that it was a good fit for this project, since it is such a unique strip along there. There is just not a lot of options in what we can do. Like Shawn mentioned and ACHD traffic staff felt that, you know, leaving those islands at the ends would help a little bit, although it wasn't required. We left them in there. We thought it did offer a little bit more of a circuitous route for the cars, you know, at each end. I think if you look at the tangent length there between the south end of the top curve and the north end of the south curve, it's about 870 feet and in that length we do have two chokers, so if you break that down to, you know, 200 and some feet between the chokers, so it doesn't really give an opportunity for, you know, vehicles to speed excessively, although I'm sure people will, as they do down every street. But I think ACHD staff recognized the conditions and kind of the hindrances of this strip and what we can do with it and what we can't do with it and they felt that using the chokers would be the best application for this. They actually preferred the chokers over the island. Rohm: Possibly an additional choker right in the middle, then? Erickson: You know, that's something we can look at. You know, if -- the chokers are easy to adapt on this other development. It's an in-fill project, we are dealing with a narrow strip, and you try to get a significant curvature in a road, it really limits what you can do and presents hardship for what you can do for lot layouts, common lots, and even just the roadway geometry in meeting some of the standards. If we needed to, we could add, you know, another choker -- we could add two more chokers in there if that -- you know, if the Commission thought that that would enhance the traffic calming on that strip. The chokers that we show now, like I say, they are common lots, they will be landscaped and irrigated, so they are not going to be eye sores, they will look nice and -,;, Rohm: I think the -- to encapsulate the concerns of the public has been that this stretch is too long without any calming -- traffic calming device and if you can put additional chokers in -- if, in fact, chokers work as well as islands, then -- and Ada County Highway District knows this probably better than we, but if you can put additional chokers in that will do that traffic calming that will help alleviate some of the concerns of the public. Erickson: I think it will. The reason why we went with two is that's what came from the discussion with ACHD staff. They thought that two would be necessary on this tangent length of road. So, that's why we ended up with two. And end up with, you know, 200 and some odd feet between them. If needed to add another and reduce that spacing, we could certainly do that and provide even tangent sections between the chokers along that stretch. And I don't know if you guys would feel more comfortable with one or two or -- Newton-Huckabay: How wide is the choker, each one? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 39 of 57 Erickson: There is a 20-foot clear between the faces of the curb, so you have got two ten foot lanes at the choker locations. That's the fire department requirement for a minimum width. Newton-Huckabay: So, the choker is -- each one of them is like six feet wide? If you reduce it from 33 -- Erickson: Thirty-three, twenty -- yeah. Six and a half feet. Newton-Huckabay: Six and a half feet wide. Zaremba: Review with me a little bit of the discussion that this --- and it was mentioned by someone from the audience, whether you call this road a collector or not, it really functions as a collector for not only the northern portion of this development, but the surrounding developments, and the issue raised is the 17 or 19, I think it is, properties that will have to back into this street and the point was made that on something we really call a collector we don't allow driveways onto it and this, to me, seems to qualify as a collector, even though it's not being called that. Review with me some of the discussion that ACHD had with you about that. Erickson: They, actually, just told me what the classification was and as far as their collector classification, they recognize that there are homes fronting this road and they didn't take it lightly either, you know, that they did suggest that traffic calming would be necessary to try to keep trips or cars traveling down the street, the speeds down as much as they could, and that's why you don't see a lot of collector-type streets with traffic calming like this on roads. That's the purpose of the calming is to really make an effort to get the speeds down of the cars coming through there and I think it's an effective design. I think with the limitations that we have and the sizes and things and the amount of traffic calming that we are -- that we can provide and, you know, if it would make the public more comfortable, we could put a couple additional chokers in. Rohm: I'm not sure that additional chokes is as appropriate as where they are located and if you were to move one of the chokers north to about here and bring this other choker down to about here, theh, you're splitting the whole -- Erickson: That's where we have them. Rohm: Oh, there is a choker right there? I was thinking it was right there. With possibly an additional choker right here. Erickson: I think if we were to add an additional choker, we would probably want to push it north and south and distribute the tangents evenly. I think that's the point that you're trying to make. Rohm: The point is you don't want to give a long stretch that the traffic can speed up. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 40 of 57 Erickson: Right. Right. Borup: Can you discuss any conversation you had with ACHD on the double cul-de- sac? Was that even discussed with them or they said they wanted a through street and it was dropped? Erickson: Yeah. Commissioner Borup, from the word go with our predevelopment meeting it was a through street requirement. So, that's kind of what we based -- I think this is about the sixth rendition of this project and this is what we have ended up with after a lot of meetings and a lot of planning and -- Borup: So, it sounds like it really wasn't discussed to try to be pushed, then? Erickson: It wasn't pushed. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I think I would still like to see something in the center, some kind of a knuckle of some sort. I mean I hate to do one -- Zaremba: I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you. Newton-Huckabay: Some kind of an island in the middle of the -- that dissects that -- that 850 feet and, then, move the pinchers off north and south. I mean you could put one -- Zaremba: Are you suggesting one island in the middle and the pinchers shift a little bit? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: Is that what you are -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Or -- yeah. And take out -- you know, lose three -- take three lots out and make -- you know, and, then, you get some bigger lots, because-- Zaremba: They'd still be 80 feet deep, but some of them would be 90 wide, instead of 55 wide or -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: Seventy-five wide, something like that. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And I think the -- that would be the most likely to flow with the north and south development and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 41 of 57 Rohm: Can you accommodate an island and still be able to split three lots into two and be able to meet your radius that you're talking from a -- the curvature of the road? Erickson: Commissioner Rohm, I think it's going to be more than -- you know, each of those lots -- I believe they show up as 50 or 55 feet wide. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Erickson: They are probably going to talk about four or five lots in order give a significant shift in the road. But that's why we steered away from islands in this narrow stretch and the reason why is to have an effective island you need to have a major shift in the road for traffic to actually have to look, turn, and turn around the island, or go through a long curve. And that's why ACHD staff, they suggested not to do islands, they suggested to do these chokers instead. Borup: Can you do the same radius as you do -- as they do on the roundabouts? Erickson: I guess you could. Roundabout radiuses are significantly larger than an island. Borup: Are they? Erickson: Yeah. Borup: They didn't seem much more than through an intersection. A little bit more, but not that much more it didn't seem like. Erickson: Yeah. It would be tough to fit the roundabout in that -- Borup: Okay. I thought maybe the roundabout radius might be smaller. Erickson: No. Huh-uh. Newton-Huckabay: Well, my original comment -- Borup: I don't mean a roundabout, I mean just the radius on a bulb out. Newton-Huckabay: As it's designed today, I, myself, will be -- not vote to recommend approval to the City Council. So, irregardless of whether an island is a good idea according to ACHD -- you know, I don't like the way it looks, I think the homeowners have good points. I'm not so against the idea of putting a parkway through there and -- you know, because like Chairman Zaremba said, it acts like a collector street, whether you want it to be a collector street or not, you know, it's going to be a collector street of some sort and so I think that it's going to warrant maybe a little bit of extraordinary effort to make it, you know, a slow collector street and my -- without some change like that or recommended change like that, I will -- I will not vote to approve it to City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 42 of 57 Erickson: To make sure I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Huckabay, you'd like to see an island in the center of that stretch. Newton-Huckabay: That would be my -- and, then, move the two pinchers down, would be I think -- you're the engineer, I'm the Planning and Zoning Commissioner, but something like that. And, yes, you may have to lose some lots, but it's going to increase the lot size, it's going to increase the lot value, so I mean at the end of the day I think it could all work. That's what I'm saying. And end of comment. Zaremba: And along that same line, just to consider this, if -- the way I'm reading it, there are 18 building lots -- Erickson: There are 14. Borup: -- the one at the north end is pretty sizable, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Those are common lots one, one in each -- Erickson: There are 14 along that-- Zaremba: Okay. So, we have -- that makes sense. It says common lot right next to them. Sorry about that. So, 16 building lots? Erickson: I believe there is 14. Zaremba: Fourteen. And I agree that that -- even with the pinchers, that long stretch and cars backing out there, it's terribly uncomfortable not to have some variation in it somewhere and I think along the lines of what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, is about the center of it to either -- the difficulty with an island, it doesn't do anything for the northbound lanes. Put an island in, the northbound lanes stay where they are. Borup: That's if the straightaway -- Zaremba: -- so the lane shift. So, I -- my feeling is there needs to be a 20 foot shift in the road right in the middle and widen a few of the building lots and maybe end up instead of having 16 of them, there is 13 of them, but they are wider and that one spot the road actually shifts and I realize you can't shift the road in two feet, it's going to take the space of maybe three of these lots, but if they are making -- if we are making them wider, it still leaves people backing out into the street, but if you calm it considerably, to me -- and my instinct is we would not be doing the right thing for Meridian to approve it as is, unfortunately. And our suggestions again -- well, let me get a consensus. If most of us are comfortable with the north end and the south end, ACHD has said the cross- road at the south end has to connect and I think that will, eventually, be an advantage to the people outside of this subdivision as well, but our main concern is this difficult Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 43 of 57 stretch through the middle that's 121 feet wide. I see heads nodding, so we are all focusing on the same area, otherwise, the other parts of it can be pretty typical. Rohm: And I guess along those lines, if, in fact, you put the -- if you put a swerve in the road in the middle of that section, it almost eliminates the need for the chokers and you can't -- over 300 feet, you're not going to get those higher speeds, so maybe that's kind of the compromise going the other direction is that you put the -- change the road's location and lose some lots and the chokers, I personally -- I think the chokers are a traffic hazard myself. And so to change the location of the road might be a better answer from everybody's perspective. Zaremba: And just off the top of your head, if -- what did we say, the whole length of this was 850 feet, something like -- Erickson: Yeah. A little more, but -- 70, 80 feet -- Zaremba: If we said the roadway had to shift, you wouldn't want it to shift, so that the southbound lane ended up being where the northbound lane is. If you're going to shift it at all, you need to shift it at least 25 feet. Erickson: You actually look at the lane shift. It depends, you know, if we put an island in or if we don't, if we actually add some curvature to the road. I think it sounds like the goal here is traffic calming and with that the curvature of the road would accomplish that. Zaremba: So, that -- if the center of that curvature was at 420 feet up, how long does it take you to get from the property line as drawn into that curvature? Erickson: You're talking about lineal footage? Zaremba: Tell me the curve from when you begin the curve to when you get to the maximum -- Erickson: Shift? Zaremba: -- displacement. Shift. Shift in the curb, how long does that need to be? Erickson: It's really a function of how you shift. If we shift like say 11 feet or 12 feet or until we do half the roadway, we do 16 and a half feet, we can look at -- I can talk to ACHD staff and see what kind of a shift they will allow us to do and see if there is something we can work out with them with their staff to get the shift as compressed as we can, but yet still be effective to have a curve in the road. Zaremba: I guess what I'm getting at is some kind of a -- if we are going to bother to make a suggestion at all, are we going to have a 300 foot right of way and, then, 200 foot involved in this shift and, then, another 300 feet, is that-- Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 44 of 57 Erickson: I'm just going to say it's going to take a couple hundred feet to do it. Probably 200 feet or 300 feet. Zaremba: That works for me. That would mean there would be a couple lots there that may end up not being build-able, but -- Erickson: Probably about six. Zaremba: Nice landscaping would be a good addition. Is this the kind of -- would we like to see something like that? Is that what we are talking about or are we even close to -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: Okay. Mrs. Canning. Canning: I'm sorry. You seem to be going a direction that worries me a little bit, in that I think although -- I think Commissioner Borup pointed out that chokers are probably more effective than a landscape island here. Part of that reason is that once you put a landscape island in, you've got to get 20 feet for the fire department on either side. So, you actually have a wider travel way that allows you to go faster. It seems counter-intuitive, but, actually, putting the landscape islands in allows more room for people to go -- the more room you give them, the faster they will go. If you suggest changes that effectively eliminate the ability to have lots on this area, which I know the neighbors are in favor, but those houses actually will decrease speeds. So, if you effectively remove all the lots here by making them un-buildable, then, people will drive faster along here, because there is no houses to worry about. There is driveways. It would seem to me that the Commission could maybe just leave a little more flexibility in their directions to the applicant to maybe work up a couple more schemes and bring them back to you for further consideration, rather than trying to design it tonight, because I think that once pencil is put to paper that we will find that some of these don't work very good and there may be some other options. And that's all I was hoping I could communicate. Zaremba: Thank you for that, that is -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I have the same feeling on the island. I think a peninsula or, you know, a large bulb out on one side, otherwise, you have just opened up more traffic area. I do have another -- and this may be a little -- a little irregular and I don't know how much weight it will carry with ACHD, but I would be interested in maybe just a quick show of hands Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 45 of 57 from the audience if they would prefer a cul-de-sac and not have a through street, or this large island or bulb out calming device. Just one or other. There are two choices. Zaremba: I would be willing to ask that and let me phrase it this way: If that long stretch was to be opposing cul-de-sacs, then, we assume the direct access to Ustick goes away and they are going to use Curt as the entrance to the southern cul-de-sac. Borup: It sounds like that's what ACHD is saying. Zaremba: And with that is there a show of hands that anybody feels that's what they'd like to see? I see not a single hand raised and see some -- Borup: The question was the double cul-de-sac; there is nobody in favor of that? Zaremba: I'm sorry; we can't have discussion from the audience. Newton-Huckabay: ACHD's statement is that access to Ustick would go to Curt if there was no straight through. So, that is the only option. Borup: I think we need to have both subdivisions vote separately. Zaremba: So, we don't have support for the cul-de-sacs given the change. Borup: So what's this vote on? I just didn't hear what your vote was -- what are you asking for? Zaremba: What I asked is assuming that the access to Ustick would go away and Curt would be used, was there support for the two cul-de-sacs and I saw heads shaking no and no hands raised. A couple of hands. Borup: Four for the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: Well, then, my suggestion would be -- it sounds like the consensus of the Commission is that we ask for maybe two or three optional treatments for this or reasons why ACHD won't accept them or -- and do we want to ask for further -- another neighborhood meeting before it comes back to us? Borup: To do what? Zaremba: To discuss the treatment of the narrow section. Newton-Huckabay: I think the neighborhood meeting -- the second neighborhood meeting was pretty effective in the EI Gato situation and this isn't -- as Mr. Morrison pointed out, that -- you know, I mean I expected when I saw EI Gato on the docket tonight that here we go again and, obviously, that neighborhood meeting was very Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 46 of 57 effective and I don't think it's a bad idea in this situation either. It might save us two hours next time. Zaremba: Let me suggest that the chair would entertain a motion to continue these hearings and request that in the meantime the applicant hold another neighborhood meeting -- first, provide some alternate suggestions is for the one strip that's in contention, hold a neighborhood meeting about those suggestions, before it comes back to us. I see some heads nodding. Is that a consensus? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. For me. Zaremba: The question would be for us where would we want to put that and, then, for the applicant could they make some alternate drawings and have a neighborhood meeting before the time that we suggest. Anybody want to propose a date? Rohm: Well, before we propose a date -- Zaremba: Or do we want to -- Rohm: Well, I think that's the direction we need to go, but I also think that none of this is of any value if we don't get concurrence from Ada County Highway District. So, if the developer and the community meeting come to one conclusion and Ada County Highway District doesn't buy off on it, you haven't moved forward, so -- Zaremba: Well, I think we can signal the ACHD that our Planning and Zoning Commission is not buying this configuration. There needs to be something else. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: So, that message can be -- Rohm: Yeah. I think the developer needs to get alternatives from ACHD that are acceptable within that venue prior to having the community meeting, so that the alternatives can be discussed. That would -- Zaremba: Be possible. Rohm: Yeah. Would be possible. Zaremba: That makes sense. Rohm: So, with that being said, we should probably move it out-- Zaremba: Could we ask Mr. Nickel if he could suggest a time frame? Nickel: When is your next-- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 4, 2005 Page 47 of 57 Zaremba: We are suggesting that you provide a couple drawings, consult with ACHD again and, then, hold a neighborhood meeting before the continuation date. How long do you think some of that would take? And we are only talking about the strip in the middle. The north and south portions are -- Nickel: Now, Mr. Chairman, when you say meet with ACHD, what are you expecting to get from them? I mean we can't go back to their Commission, so it would be staff's -- I guess staff -- a letter from staff, is that what you're indicating? Zaremba: We would need their input on your alternates to this. Nickel: Okay. We can do that in a relatively-- Zaremba: And I -- Nickel: . We could do that pretty quickly. Zaremba: I realize they have -- as you say, there is a time for appealing what their commission does. Nickel: Right. Zaremba: But I think the point is this Commission would recommend denial of it as is and that's a point you need to make to them. That this section needs to be reconfigured somehow. Nickel: And I guess I need to restate myself. I know we can reconfigure it with staff and get them to accept it. The only thing I am concerned with is if we were to do the two cul-de-sac concept, because of their policy that requires -- Zaremba: Yeah. I didn't see support for the two cul-de-sacs. Nickel: Okay. But -- I know we can get to staff -- ACHD staff and come up with an alternative within that time fame, so -- Zaremba: And I think it's a consensus that you may end up losing not very many, but a few of the 16 lots. I don't have a problem with making them wider, you know, to -- Moe: Quite frankly, a little additional square footage is going to help it out as well. It's going to get it a little closer to, you know, your basic requirements. Rohm: What date? Nickel: Two weeks we can have this resolved. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 48 of 57 Moe: The 18th is a little full. I think the 1 st of September would be the earliest we would want to see that. Zaremba: I'm trying to think of the stack of things I have -- that would be work. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: They are all this big. Zaremba: Is the 1 st of September workable? Thank you. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commission, with that time frame I'm hopeful that we can have it resolved and when we come back it will be a quick meeting. In your motion, though, if there is anything else in addition to that that you want to discuss, please, let us know now, so if there is anything else we need to look at, we can have that addressed. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess the other thing I would question -- because I did hear some of the folks in the audience did not get notification of the meeting, so I kind of want to make sure that all in attendance are given the opportunity to be at this neighborhood meeting, so I guess that means we need to put a piece of paper out and so we get all addresses or whatever. I want to make sure that they get that opportunity to be at this neighborhood meeting. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I believe I could -- if I could get a copy of the sign-up sheet from the clerk, we can use that as part of our mailing list, in addition to the 300-foot radius that we already have. Moe: Right. Zaremba: Well -- and we encourage homeowners to include their neighbors. If you get a notice, check and see if your neighbor did. There is a legal requirement to notify people within 300 feet. If you live beyond that, then, you need to have heard from your neighbors or, you know, tell the president of your homeowners association and hope they will get the word out to it, so -- Borup: Or read the sign. Zaremba: Uh? Borup: That's another reason why there is signage out. Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: But that wouldn't be for the neighborhood meeting, though. Borup: No. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August4,2005 Page 49 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one more comment. Mr. Nickel just -- if this is all we are going to discuss when we come back, to, please, make sure -- was there something, Mr. Nickel, that you are concerned that we didn't address that we are going to need to get to at the next meeting? Zaremba: Yeah. I do want to make sure we have covered all the issues that -- so we aren't raising new issues at the next meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And the only other one I can think of was the R-8 zoning, which with the adjustments we have suggested, I am not overly concerned about it myself, but I would -- Moe: I guess I would say I'm not too concerned with that either. And, not only that, we, basically, are in an R-8 zone within that area in the Comp Plan, so I think the combination of losing a few lots and we are going to gain some footage in others, I think that's going to take care of that problem itself. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Moe: So, having said that, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we -- what do I move? I move that we continue the hearings on AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of September 1 st, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Traditionally, we take a break about 9:00 o'clock. We will do so now and reconvene in about ten minutes. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: MCU 05-001 Request for a Minor Modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero lot frontages for Paramount Subdivision No.9 by Paramount Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North Meridian Road & North Linder Road: