February 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes
. -\~
\.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 27 of 95
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-061.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-061.
All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-061 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not part of the motion, but I would support the request of
one of the applicants that AZ 05-060 and 05-061 stay together. That they go onto the
City Council at the same time.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate.
Zaremba: Just a scheduling question for staff.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2,2006: RZ 05~019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935
North Eagle Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 28 of 95
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05~059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road: .
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05~052
Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within
300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-
019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052. All of these relate to the Bienville Square Subdivision
and before we take any testimony it's only being reopened to discuss the perimeter of
the project and the fencing and pathways. It's not to take testimony on the project itself,
other than as it relates to that -- that boundary. So, with that being said, I'd like to ask
staff for the staff report, please.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. With this
application you tabled this item to here. Some of the discussion was there was open
questions about the southern portion of this boundary, as well as the western property,
the fencing and the design layout and such of the multi-use pathway along that area.
Since, then, the applicant, as you have multiple letters from the applicant and staff, that
they have gone back to the neighbors and met with these property owners along the
southern boundary. They have come to an agreement that the Finch Lateral shall
remain open. You should have received a site plan stamped received by the City of
Meridian Planning on February 13th. The staff report that you received I believe on the
14th of February is the date that -- the final date, which should include a condition of
1.2, which -- trying to get Craig to flip this. The applicant did bring this layout back to us.
This is the Finch Lateral ditch, which would be approximately a 30-foot wide ditch, and
they -- Nampa-Meridian has asked for an 18 foot wide maintenance pathway. The
fence line would include a six foot wrought iron fence with the multi-use pathway
between that fence line -- or that fence line and the development. Again, the staff report
does indicate that there would be one other condition just referencing the site plan that
was received on February 13th, which includes this drawing that I'm showing you on
here. Staff actually supports this -- this change to the -- I guess it's the master site plan
now that has been submitted, as well as the applicant has submitted a new fencing plan
for the western property boundary, which would be of a composite sort of a nature with
stone and composite materials, which would be to the liking of the neighbors. The
applicant has indicated that the neighbors are in support of this -- of these design
changes. With that, there should be two letters in your packet of support of these
designs and staff is recommending approval with the staff report that you received this
week.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff by the Commission?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 29 of 95
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. If you would take the current drawing off and
show the one that was there before. Just to clarify, since I wasn't clear and maybe --
maybe I'm the only one, but maybe others aren't clear. But to make certain, orienting to
this drawing, this would be Carol Subdivision on this side and this would be Bienville on
this side?
Guenther: That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. That was it.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff?
Moe: Joe, I guess one thing I do have, I understand that the neighbors and the
applicant have kind of worked this all out and we have the plan and whatnot, but have
you received anything else in regards to -- you know, other than the master plan here,
as far as explanation for the fencing and whatnot or are we just supposed to take that
off the master -- this revised master plan? I bring that up, because based upon the
letters that we did receive. When the applicant comes up I'll have a couple questions in
regards to some of the --
Guenther: I have not received any other correspondence with neighbors, outside of
what is in the packets.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant, please, come forward.
Guenther: The copies that the applicant is handing out are the copies that I had up on
the presentation. We received them via e-mail I believe on Tuesday as well.
Unger: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Bob Unger with Redcliff Development. Our
address is 7871, Suite 125, East State Street in Meridian -- Eagle. Getting my places
mixed up. What I have just passed out to you reflects what staff has on the board here.
If you go to the second page, that is a site -- or a view from the -- of the pathway as we
are proposing with the trees on either side of it and the wrought iron fencing on the left-
hand side. That would be a view looking west. If you go to the next sheet, this is a view
looking north, which would be towards the condos that we are proposing. The next
sheet is just kind of an overhead -- somewhat of an overhead angle view, once again,
looking west -- or east. Northeast. Which also, once again, shows the condos and the
possible commercial building structures that would be there. And in all these we are
showing the pathway with the fencing and the trees on either side of the pathway. And,
then, the last picture that we have in there is a shot from the southeast corner of the
project, in other words, there at the corner there of Eagle Road and just south of the
canal itself. This is the -- for the Finch Lateral itself, this is what we reviewed. We met
with the property owners twice since we last were before you folks. We met last
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 30 of95
Saturday morning -- one of the property owners was nice enough to let us use his
home. And, then, the Wednesday before that, Wednesday last week, we met on site
with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Bill Hansen, and the property owners along the
southern border, to discuss, you know, what we could or could not do within the
easement of the Finch Lateral. And what we brought before you this evening is the
conclusion of those discussions and negotiations, where the Finch Lateral will be left
open. There is an 18-foot -- there will be an 18-foot separation between the top of the
bank over to the fence area. This would be allowed -- would allow Nampa-Meridian
sufficient room to get in and out of there to do any work on the ditch if they need to.
Small shrubs are permitted within that 18 foot strip. The -- our landscape architect kind
of pushed them -- kind of bowed them out a little bit. Those will need to be up against
the fence. And, then, we had the wrought iron fence and, then, we have another four
feet between the wrought iron fence and the pathway, which allows for tree planting
every 35 feet. And, then, we have a seven foot pathway. And on the other side of the
pathway we have some larger trees that will be placed at 35-foot on center, but they will
be spaced in between these front trees to give a good visual barrier throughout the
project. And as I have indicated, the property owners to the south of the project have
indicated that they are okay with this plan. In fact, we have modified it since our plan --
or since our discussions on Monday based upon their recommendation. So, this is what
they asked us to do and that's what we are bringing before you this evening. If you will
go to the -- the next one is for the west -- western boundary landscape and fence detail.
Zaremba: Joe has that one, too.
Guenther: I was looking for a picture.
Unger: Oh. Sorry. No pictures on this on. What we are showing here is -- our original
fence that we were proposing along this western boundary was -- actually, was going to
be a pillar and cedar solid fence. The neighbors did not like that. They felt that the
cedar was not sufficient. They had concerns about the durability. What we are coming
back with is this is actually -- is not cedar, this is Trex, which is a composite that's made
of recycled plastic and wooden mixture and it comes in some different colors. What we
are showing here and in our picture is more towards a cedar-looking color and we have
shown this to a couple of the neighbors along the western border. They seem to feel
comfortable with that. That's what we are proposing what we want to go forward with.
It's a very durable product. In fact, it -- we have done an awful lot of research and as
has neighbors -- the neighbors over there have also done some research. The
information we are coming up with is that it has anywhere from a -- some of the product
it says a ten year warranty. What we found has a 25 year warranty. So, it's a very
durable, very solid product. And that's what we are all looking for is something that's
durable and solid, a product that's going to last awhile and, in addition, the fence itself
would continue to be always maintained by the property owners association, as would
any of the landscaping within the project. And just to show the detail here, this would be
the fence that we are proposing. We have a bermed area here and trees every 35 feet.
That's within a 15 foot section. Once, again, a seven foot path and, then, another eight
feet for additional trees. And, then, the properties that would abut this within our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 31 of 95
development, they would be allowed to have an iron fence along this portion of it. . And
that is within our 30 foot landscape buffer that is shown along our plan. So, with that I
think I can conclude the presentation, because that's what you instructed us to do and
that's what we have done. And I'll take any questions that you may have.
Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Unger, as far as your renderings that you have submitted to us tonight in
regards to the condominiums, basically with the windows facing to the west, is that all
the windows we are going to see in the condos facing to the west?
Unger: I'm sorry, I didn't -- I think I understood you, but --
Moe: The picture right here as far as your window location and whatnot facing --
Unger: South you mean?
Moe: South. I'm sorry.
Unger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moe, yes, those particular units, they do have windows.
Those are bedrooms and we have to have windows in there. You know, we will try to
put in sufficient landscaping and buffering to somewhat, you know, block their view.
But, once again, I think just to remind you --
Moe: Mr. Unger, Let me -- what I was going to tell you is I think this is more than
adequate.
Unger: Oh. Okay.
Moe: I wasn't looking for less.
Unger: Okay. I'll quit right there, then.
Moe: Another thing, are you in receipt of the letter from Betty Rosso to the
Commission?
Unger: No, we haven't received that.
Moe: Do we have other copies? I think it's important that he get a copy of this, because
there were comments made within her letter that I just kind of want -- maybe after we
have the other public testimony, you may answer to -- you know, she makes mention of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 32 of 95
your meeting on Saturday, the 11th. I think she still has some concerns and then -'- so,
maybe you can kind of review that and answer to that.
Unger: Okay.
Moe: Okay? That's all my comments.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on the treatment of the ditch and pathway and that stuff along
your southern property, I assume your property line is the center of the ditch, which
means that you're responsible for maintenance north of that, including what would be
the easement between the ditch and your fence and my question is should that be in a
separate parcel maintained by the homeowners association or how is that 18 foot wide
strip between the ditch and the fence going to be maintained?
Unger: Mr. Chair, what is -- the greenery that you see here is going to be more of a
longer buffalo-type grass. In our discussions Bill Hensen, he was all right with that. He
was also comfortable with our maintaining this 18 foot strip. We will have to have a
license agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in order to do that and it
will be identified as part of the landscape area that will be maintained by the property
owners association. So, it will be incorporated into our CC&Rs.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. And my other question, actually, is to staff while you're
here. If the pathway is to serve as part of the regional pathway, isn't there a
requirement that that be ten feet wide?
Guenther: That is correct. We were looking at that just now and Craig -- I was going to
bring that up as a point of clarification. The condition 1.1.2 does indicate that the
pathway needs to be compliant with UDC sections for regional multi-use pathways,
which have their own fencing and landscaping standards, which also has -- the
construction standards of the pathway needs to be ten foot wide. But with the additional
15 feet of landscaping, the applicant should be able to accommodate that.
Zaremba: He nods his head yes. The rattle doesn't show up on the public record.
Unger: Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, staff and I discussed this a couple of days ago
and staff was going to check on that for me and we hadn't communicated since then.
That was Tuesday?
Guenther: I believe that was when you originally made the submittal, yes.
Unger: But at that time he informed me that it may have to be wider and we don't have
a problem with that.
Zaremba: And you can work it out to be the ten feet?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 33 of95
Unger: Absolutely.
Zaremba: That was my other question. That's it.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time I will open it to public testimony and start with Billy
Knorpp.
Knorpp: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am -- my name is Billy Knorpp. I live on
2972 Leslie Drive. So, I'm one of the seven lots that back up on the south side of this
development. We did meet with Mr. Unger twice, as he indicated, and we did come to
a -- what seems to be a good agreement. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points from
my point of view of what I would want to make sure either gets into the record or
becomes part of what would happen and that is -- I guess the first one is sort of a
question, I guess. Mr. Unger believes that a see-through fence is required. We would,
of course, prefer it not be a see-through fence, if it were possible to put something along
there, but I think it's part of the code associated with this path. But if that was possible
to be a solid fence, we would prefer it to be a solid fence, rather than the see-through
fence that is now planned. The other is the larger -- the fact that they're going to put in
landscaping, which is great, I mean he's agreed to put in twice as many trees, actually,
as I think are required. What we'd like is the trees be big enough so that they are not
saplings, you know, they are two feet high and they take 25 years to grow up into
anything that's useful, that they be reasonable size trees put in at the time, so that when
the -- and we didn't discuss this, but I believe Mr. Unger would agree to this. We
haven't really -- it isn't something that came up in the meetings that we had. He's been
very agreeable in helping us to resolve this -- the differences between us. So, I can't
speak for him, obviously, but I just wanted to put that in the record that, hopefully, the
trees will be at least five gallon or so size, so that they will grow enough rapidly to cover
up the area. And the other issue is, again, Mr. Unger agreed that they would move the
roads and other obstructions around, so that the -- he took out the drawing, but that
drawing that shows the profile of the path, that that profile would, actually, continue
everywhere. The original site plan didn't leave enough space in some parts of the path
that you could actually put those trees and other shrubbery on the north side of the path
and so as long as they have agreed and they continue to have enough space there to
put that line of trees in, then, I think it will all work fine. So, those are, really, the only
things. Just some clarification more than anything, of the agreement that we did come
to. So, I think that's all. All the other things were discussed in the other meeting. We
still have concerns about traffic, but that's not a topic to be discussed here at this
moment.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this testimony? Thank you, sir.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Unger will bring it up, but on the subject of
whether that's an open vision fence or a closed fence, under the old ordinances, the
police department consistently added the requirement that along public pathways it be
an open vision fence. That's a safety feature. And for that reason it got into the new
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 34 of95
Unified Development Code as a requirement. So, it's a police department request that
that not be variable, that it be an open vision fence along all public pathways.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time Ray Tomczak. From the audience he says his
questions have been answered. Steve Meredith. And from the audience his questions
have been addressed as well. Is there anybody else from the audience that would like
to speak at this time? Please come forward.
Grant: My name is Steve Grant, Mr. Chairman. I live at 1534 Leslie, which is on the
western boundary of the proposed development. I am concerned that there is an
assumption been made that the composite fence that was described to you by Mr.
Unger is -- he -- I think his words were seems to be in agreement, because that is not
the case. I came away from -- I didn't go to the meeting on Saturday, I had another
commitment, but I was given a drawing that shows a masonry fence and a composite
fence. After the meeting started tonight, do you see the masonry fence anywhere? It's
gone. That's the first I knew about it. And I'm very concerned and I'll just draw your
attention to the fact that we were here late two weeks ago and Mr. Unger stood up and
said, okay, I surrender, masonry fence on the west side. Do you remember that? And
Mr. Borup asked him what about the south side? And that's when the -- we started to
continue. So, I'm asking the Commission to hold them to their commitment to a
masonry fence on the west side as we discussed and they agreed to two weeks ago.
And that's -- that's all I guess I really want to say at this moment. Any questions?
Rohm: I think you have been pretty clear. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else
that would like to testify? At this time would the applicant like to come back, please.
Unger: Mr. Chair, Bob Unger again with Red cI iff. I think the first gentleman was asking
for five gallon trees. We will put in whatever code requires. I believe those are three
gallon. I'm not sure, but whatever code requires we will put in there. Whatever size is
required by city code.
Guenther: City code requires two inch caliper trees, which approximate a five gallon.
Unger: Okay. As far as the -- Mr. Grant's comments, we were unable to get this final
composite fence to him before this evening, so I don't know exactly what his -- whether
he supports it or doesn't. This is a compromise that we have put out there and this is
what we want to go with. It's a very durable fence. It's a lot better looking than a block
wall fence. We did get some indication that that would be a favorable move, but,
obviously, that's not confirmed. So, I apologize if we have misled you that everybody's
happy with that fence. This is the fence that we are asking you to approve. In reading
through the Betty Rosso letter, I'm not quite sure what kind of comment you're looking
for from me.
Moe: Mr. Unger, I think, basically, I would imagine that items such as Mr. Grant has
brought up are pretty much what she was referring to, to make sure that whatever
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 35 of 95
agreements were made on Saturday, you know, within your discussions, that those
things would definitely be done. I think that's, basically, what I got out of her letter.
Unger: And I agree with you and I think whatever conditions of approval that this
Commission puts on us, holds us to any agreements that we have out there and I think
that's the reassurance that she's looking for.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, one other question. Mr. Unger, do you remember the comment
in our last meeting about the block wall?
Unger: Yes, I do.
Moe: Thank you. That's all I have.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: The meeting Saturday, do you know how many people along the western
boundary were there?
Unger: I can only confirm that there was one, because I believe Ray was there. That's
the only one that I know for sure is from the western boundary.
Borup: And another -- just a comment. You had mentioned you weren't sure whether
Mr. Grant was in favor of the composite fence or not. I thought his testimony was pretty
clear, though.
Unger: Well, let me share with you the comments I heard from him before we came into
the hearing, was that he wanted to look at this.
Borup: Okay.
Unger: If there were anything out there, you know, comparable to this. So, yeah, I
agree.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Unger.
Unger: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this hearing?
Commissioner Zaremba, any comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 36 of95
Zaremba: I do have comments, which could come either before or after. I don't actually
have questions.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- on the property to the north on the western boundary,
isn't there going to be a masonry fence along a couple of the property lines?
Rohm: I believe that that's where the discussion ended the last hearing, is there is a
masonry fence to the -- on the adjacent property. Just a moment.
Zaremba: My recollection was that it would be a continuation of the same fence that
Sadie Creek was building on their portion that abuts the eastern part of Carol
Subdivision.
Rohm: I believe that that was where the discussion ended at the last hearing, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my preference would be to have the same fence continue
along the entire eastern -- I mean, obviously, the lateral presents a unique situation,
because it's the ditch and the open site requirement, but along the western boundary to
continue the same type of fence, so you have continuity through the two projects.
Rohm: And I think that there is general support for that conclusion.
Borup: The other concern I have -- it appears there is only two people that had any
input on that. I'm wondering -- two out of the six is all that seemed to have a concern.
I'm wondering why the others didn't have any input either through letters or attending
the meeting.
Rohm: Well, there is a number of reasons why that may be. At the conclusion of our
last open hearing the assumption was that we were going to have a block wall all the
way along that west line and if, in fact, that was the conclusion, there would be no
reason for them to provide additional input. So, I'm pretty sure that that's how that--
Borup: That's why they didn't go to the meetings.
Rohm: And so, you know, I think at such time that we are ready to make a motion, it
would probably be best to include something to that effect.
Newton-Huckabay: I have been re-reading the testimony from last hearing and it's
pretty clear from the public testimony and from the statements that it is reasonable that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 37 of95
anyone would have gone away from that hearing assuming that there was going to be a
masonry fence, if not the exact same type of fence that's going to be on the property to
the north.
Rohm: And I think that we are all in agreement here, so at this point in time I think it's
probably appropriate to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-057, RZ
05-019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052, all relating to Bienville Square Subdivision.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059
and CUP 05-052. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I would float a motion and, then, perhaps have
discussion of that motion afterwards, if I may.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Borup: One other discussion item from me.
Rohm: Yes. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I just noticed there is no comment on that Eagle Road access. I believe ITD
denied it, didn't they?
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, ITD has not denied that access point at this time --
Borup: They just didn't approve it, was that --
Guenther: ITD's policy that I have been delivered from their staff is that they want to
see the land use proposal being approved or denied by the City of Meridian prior to
taking their action, because if we are not going to allow the access, there would be no
sense of them running an access permit through their executive committee. There have
been access permit discussions between many of these applicants and ITD staff, but I
don't believe the executive committee have been --
Borup: So, part of our approval would be recommending the access point as designed.
Guenther: Well, actually, part of your approval, if you are consistent with the conditions
of approval that are outlined in the staff report, would be to indicate the required 30 foot
wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road, which is in condition 1.1.3, which would be to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 38 of95
eliminate that access and replace it within landscaping, which would be the
recommendation that this Commission would send to the City Council.
Borup: But I don't believe that was the Commission's discussion last time.
Zaremba: Well, that is the portion that I was going to discuss.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I was going to phrase it in the motion such that the access would be there,
but, no, let's discuss it before I make the motion. My feeling is it is important to have the
access there and for it to be a full access. Possibly even signalized, if possible. The
issue on this particular corner, even different than the other corners, is that with Carol
Subdivision behind it, it's different than the other three corners, even at this same
intersection. If you go behind the Lowe's property, you could, by twisting around in a
convoluted double back and much turns, drive from Ustick to Eagle Road within
residential subdivision, but there is -- it's not any easy way to go and it would not attract
people to cut through. On the southwest corner there is no connection now. If ACHD
does make a connection -- and as we talked on one of the projects, maintain 35 feet
along their southern border and on the next door project that will come up we will
probably discuss that again, if that is somehow going to connect to Eagle, then, the
people on that corner will have a way to go around on the northeast corner where Kohl's
is going to be. They have a backage road that goes north from Ustick and the applicant
has made it very clear that they intend to bend that around to Eagle at some point. The
benefit of that is -- let me back up a second. If you have traffic that is going where you
don't want it and cutting through a neighborhood, such a Carol, which does connect
from Ustick to Eagle, it's attractive as a cut through and that is undesirable. A very
similar scenario is called a bypass and that's attractive. You want that in some places.
One of the proposals that has been presented entirely different from this and my
recollection is that I'm thinking of the intersection of Ten Mile and McMillan where either
one developer owns three of the corners out of four or at least if it's different developers
they are working with the same engineer, and they have presented a concept where
there are roadways that connect and allow you to bypass the intersection. With an
intersection like Ustick and Eagle, it's my assumption that we aren't -- we aren't even at
this point seeing half the traffic that's going to be on Eagle. When Canyon county
develops, Ustick is the longest east-west road in the Treasure Valley. It does go all the
way to the Snake River. The people in Canyon county consider it to be a major arterial.
When it becomes a major arterial, there will be people who want to bypass the
intersection of Ustick and Eagle. They can do so on the other three corners. On the
corner that we are talking about, they can only bypass the intersection by cutting
through Carol Road. If there is no access in Bienville to Eagle Road, my feeling is that
that access in Bienville to Eagle Road is opposite to my opinion about access
everywhere else. I absolutely agree with limiting access to the section line roads and a
half mile in between and possibly right-in, right-out at the quarter mile, not only on the
state highways, but on most of our arterials I would support that. If in the major point we
stick to that, then, the few times when there is a reasonable exception, which I think this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 39 of95
is, it's easier to make that exception. My feeling is that we do no good to the traffic and
no good to Carol Subdivision by not providing a way to bypass that intersection for
people that want to. It is being provided on the other three corners. You can go north
behind Lowe's and west at their north property line. I'm pretty sure that the property on
the northeast corner is going to end up connecting. We are already talking about the
property on the southeast corner connecting. I believe there needs to be a connection
through Bienville. I would support it being a public road the whole way and I would
support there being a signalized intersection at Eagle, even though I would not support
that kind of access virtually anywhere else. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Rohm: Thank you. And I think as the property to the east develops, will be the
determinate whether there will be a signal at that proposed access point. So, I guess
we will wait and see how that washes out, but thank you for your comments. Are there
any other comments from the Commission before motion is to be made?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: I have one.
Moe: I guess I would agree with Commissioner Zaremba entirely.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Isn't there going to be a light on the west side of Ustick? Does that
line up with the property -- the Sadie Creek property or where Kohl's -- weren't they
putting in a signal? Where was that signal going to be? So, it's just to the east of Leslie
Way. Okay.
Rohm: I don't know. I assume so.
Zaremba: You're talking about the signal that will be behind Kohl's?
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I was just trying to --
Zaremba: That lines up to the major roadway that comes through Sadie Creek --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. Okay.
Zaremba: -- to this one.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I would also like to say I'm in complete agreement with
Commissioner Zaremba and I think he made very logical arguments and they would be
well to be repeated at an ITD hearing.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 40 of95
Zaremba: I would be prepared to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: I'm ready.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, CUP 05-052, to include
all staff comments for their -- I believe their revised staff comments for this evening's
meeting of February 16th, 2006, and referencing specifically the master plan site plan
provided by the applicant, date stamped received by the city clerk February 13th, 2006,
and adding the pictorial representations provided by the client at this evening's meeting,
with the exception that the path will be ten feet wide and the exception that the western
boundary fence will be of materials compatible and repeating the western boundary
fence of Sadie Creek and recommending that our decision is made based on the
access to Eagle Road, which means I would delete on the staff report page -- I don't
have a page, but it's item 1.1.16 that says direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited.
I would change that to say that a full access to Eagle Road is required and as a second
part of the same motion I would say that that particular access is critical to this
Commission's recommendation of approval and would add as a part of the motion a
request to the City Council that if they make a decision other than approving that
access, that they remand any other version of this back to us for further consideration
and recommendation.
Rohm: Excellent motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded --
Guenther: Commissioner Rohm, direct lot access would imply that each one of these
five building lots would have an access to Eagle Road. That's what condition number
1.1.16--
Zaremba: Let me correct my phrasing. I would not approve direct lot access, I would
approve, as depicted on the February 13th, 2006, site plan a roadway access to Eagle.
Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, would you just care to eliminate the last sentence
of 1.1.4, which says including to -- which reflects changes to the preliminary plat. That's
the landscape plan. That would say that add landscaping where there is currently
showing an access point, to eliminate that sentence.
Zaremba: That would work for me. Yes. Eliminating that last sentence would work. I
still want to clean up 16 a little bit. Well, it says other than those that are approved. I'm
recommending that we do approve it, but that -- okay. The statement as it says, other
than points of access approved by ACHD, City of Meridian, and ITD, direct lot access is
prohibited and, actually, I agree with that, but I'm -- based the February 13th, 2006, site
plan, I'm recommending that there be a roadway access as depicted on that plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 41 of95
Guenther: So, you're recommending approval of that site plan, which shows the access
point --
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: And we will forward that to the City Council --
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: -- as you have stated? Thank you.
Zaremba: And the second part of my motion is if that changes after it leaves us, we
want to see it again.
Guenther: We will get that to them.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay. All right. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City
Council recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-
052, to include staff comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. Appreciate all input.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: At this time we will take a short break and we will reconvene at 9:35.
(Recess.)
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05~064 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear
Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West
Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-064 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on
116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision
by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west
of South Stoddard Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for tonight,
February 16th, 2006, and begin by opening the continued Public Hearing from January
19th, 2006, project AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 for Bear Creek West Subdivision and
begin with the staff report.