Loading...
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.