Loading...
August 3, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3. 2006 Page 37 of 56 Borup: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038, both relating to Bellabrook Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 10.94 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036 and PP 06- 039, both related to Bitterbrush Point Subdivision and begin with the staff report. And welcome one of our new staff members here. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject application before you is the Bitterbrush Point Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT Ada County to R-4 medium low density residential and as well as preliminary plat approval for 27 single family residential lots and four common lots. As you can see, Bitterbrush Point is generally located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land. To the east there is the existing Observation Point Subdivision and zoned R-4. To the north a platted Ada County subdivision right here. And south of the Kennedy Lateral right here is the Mussell Corner commercial subdivision. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 27 residential lots ranging between 9,600 square feet and 25,250 square feet. There is stub street connection provided by Observation Point that will serve as the sole access to the proposed development and if you can see down here residents will enter Observation Point and head up along east Observation Drive and, then, access South Andros Way and, then, get into Logger Pass Street right there. The applicant has provided 7.4 percent of the property as open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the proposed common area is provided along the Kennedy Lateral, which is tiled, to serve as a multi-purpose pathway. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are, first, the lack of the perimeter fencing plan. There is currently existing fencing running the length of the north and eastern boundary. However, the applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary. And the applicant will need to state this tonight. Additionally, the applicant proposes four foot Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 38 of 56 solid fencing along the micropath and this is acceptable and meets the requirements of the UDC. Just to clarify for the applicant, six foot solid fencing is permitted along all rear and side property lines, not adjacent to common areas and micro paths. The code would limit fencing in those instances to four foot if solid or six foot if open vision. And, lastly, ACHD has recently provided comment that the 34-foot wide street section as proposed for Observation Drive and Lake Creek Street, which are the ones that run northwest and, then, east-west up there. They are acceptable and the Commissioner can refer to the memo that should have been provided to you prior to the hearing for more information on that. They had only mentioned the 36-foot wide street section in their site specific requirement from Exhibit B and also the proposed design of the cul- de-sac do not meet the fire department's turning radius requirements and the applicant will be required to redesign them prior to submittal of the final plat. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Very nice. Mike, did you have something you wanted to add? Cole: Mr. Chairman, yes. I don't know if you guys got the memo I sent out after the staff report was sent out. I had had a meeting with the applicant's engineer on design of the off peek storage facility. He's got a rather ingenious design that doesn't involve pumps that we are kind of excited about. Very forward thinking. We just would ask that if you do recommend approval of this subdivision tonight that you would strike condition 2.2 as written in the staff report and reference 2.2 as written in the memo provided to you. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come forward? Apparently not. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Beck: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Richard Beck, 148 North 2nd Street, Eagle, Idaho. We are pleased to be able to bring this piece into the city. We feel we have come up with a land plan and use that is compatible with the surrounding uses and takes into consideration some of the site constraints that are associated with the site. I guess I will start out with the fencing, to comment on fencing, since we did not include the perimeter fencing plan or what we will do on the landscape plan. We will start with addressing that. We will be looking at, again, an open vision type fence with vinyl materials on the perimeter, especially along the landscape buffer area adjacent to the Kennedy Lateral and that will be -- we will show that on the fencing plan when we submit the final -- with the final plat. And we -- as you can see the site is -- does have one thing to take into consideration with the design is the access, the current -- the frontage on the site is just from Loggers Pass currently. However, access has historically been taken from Meridian Road to the northwest there. And, initially, with, I guess, design in mind, due to the commercial -- the commercial zoning designation there were thoughts of looking at potentially a higher density, but we felt that the R-4 and 9,500 plus foot lot sizes would establish more compatible functional land design that would be compatible with the Observation Point Subdivision, fill it. It does comply with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. And we do want to make sure that the staff report condition -- see if I can find it here. We appreciate Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 39 of 56 Amanda bringing up the memo from the Ada County Highway District. Do you want to make sure that the condition -- I believe 1.2.5 is -- reflects that memo and shows a 34 to 36 foot street section. Other than that, we agree with the staff report and I'll stand for any questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Beck, I may have missed it. I know you went with open vision on the Kennedy Lateral. What are you doing with the rest of the perimeter? Beck: It would the same all around the perimeter. We would have the open -- open vision vinyl fence. Newton-Huckabay: What is the fencing on the east? Is that just vinyl? Seck: I believe it is vinyl. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Why is it you don't want to put a solid fence around the property or the development? Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I believe one of the objectives with the open vision fence is to keep the open feel and to preserve some of the views from the property of some of the surrounding maintain ranges. I don't know that the developer -- I believe the developer would be amenable to putting in solid fencing. Newton-Huckabay: I mean isn't that a nursery right south of it there on the west side of the -- of the nursery -- Beck: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- Victory Greens? Victory Greens, yeah. Borup: But you have got the canal right there, too. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. What's on the -- what's the fencing around Victory Greens there? Is there any? I have not been that far back on the property. Borup: I doubt it. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I do, too. Do you know? Beck: I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no more comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 40 of 56 Rohm: Staff had mentioned something about your cul-de-sacs and the turning radiuses, them not being conducive. Could you speak to that a little bit? Beck: Yeah. Not -- Mr. Chairman, I'm not one hundred percent familiar with the design standards. I know that we did discuss that with our engineer and he did say that they would be -- they would meet the requirements, that it would comply with the condition. Rohm: So, just before final plat, the cul-de-sacs will be modified to accommodate for __ to respond to those comments? Beck: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Borup: It looks like you need to increase it from 45 to 48 on the radius. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? One of the things that I'll just say before you sit down is that there is additional public testimony and as they speak it's always a good idea to take notes, so you will be able to respond to any questions that come up. Beck: Thank you. Rohm: And thank you. Okay. At this time would Steve Yeager like to step forward. You're okay? From the audience he says he didn't need to speak. Okay. Jeff Johnson. Okay. B.J. Allen? Alloway. Alloway: I'm B.J. Alloway. 324 East Loggers Pass. Obviously, being on Loggers Pass, the stub street that's going to connect to this proposed -- Rohm: Could you bring the microphone down to you? There you go. Thank you. Alloway: Can you hear me now? I have several concerns with having this new subdivision being their -- their entrance being Loggers Pass. Obviously, during construction everything is going to be coming right directly in front of my house back and forth. There will be a lot of mess, mud, dust, you name it. I'm not trying to stop this subdivision, but I don't know what other entrances have been explored for this subdivision or because it has a nub street there that they just automatically looked at that and thought, okay, that will be the easy way to be an entrance, less cost effective for the subdivision. Currently there is access from Meridian Road to that subdivision and I ask that if they don't explore another avenue for at least, you know, entrance to that subdivision, that they at least use the existing road in from Meridian Road for -- during construction, so that all the construction vehicles, heavy equipment, et cetera, bypass our subdivision and that route be used. At least taken into consideration. Basically, that's pretty much it. So, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 41 of 56 Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Borup: Makes sense. Rohm: Christine Helk. Helk: Christine Helk. 432 East Forest Ridge Drive, Meridian. I live right off of Andros and Forest Ridge that kind of go like this. I'd like to know how much more traffic this is going to bring in to -- that Andros is going to become now a major road there, how much more traffic we are going to have coming, you know, in there. That's one issue I have. Because we have a lot of cut-through traffic right now. And, then, with the south 548 home subdivision from far east -- I can't say it. It's like Banana, Tanana or whatever. You know which one I mean. None of us could say it. But that's coming in. They are going to be cutting through there, too. So, here is another one that's going to be cutting through and running down Andros Way and I just really have concerns for that, for -- there is no stop signs on that and people speed on it now and I don't know if there is any way that Lake Drive -- could they do something on the site there and have like maybe two streets coming out into the stub, kind of where that Lake Drive comes in there somehow? Or I guess there is a house there. I don't know. I just don't like having only one way to come in and out and all that traffic going right next to my house, because it really is a mess and that and, then, I agree with her on the builders, if they could find another way to get in and out of there, at least until it's pretty much done, you know, because there really is a lot of trash that's thrown around and it's really a mess and if they could find another way I would appreciate that, too, and that's it. I'm sorry. Rohm: No. Good. Thank you very much. Okay. There are no others signed up to speak, but it's certainly open to -- would you like to come forward, sir? Hart: My name is Mike Hart. 2961 South Andros Way. I just want to echo some of what my neighbors have already said. South Andros Way currently we get a lot of cut- through traffic. People do not want to wait at Meridian and Victory Road. So, you can cut through there and get over to Overland or you can cut through Meridian and take Calderwood out onto Meridian. And so we get the traffic coming both ways. And by putting that subdivision in there with only one entrance and exit, it's only going to compound that. Currently all the buses that take the children, both high school, elementary, junior high, stop on South Andros Way and unload those kids. That's a very steep hill, it's blind, you cannot see what's coming from either side of that. We have already had an incident where a young -- a little girl in the neighborhood that was almost run over on her bike, because I have witnessed cars racing up that hill parallel to one another trying to beat each other up to the peak on both sides. We have already had the police out several times. We have tried to get surveys to get some kind of traffic control in there. Right now there is no way to slow it down, there is no signs, no nothing. And it's an accident waiting to happen at the moment the way those people drive through there. By putting not only the subdivision across, which is high density and, then, that one, you're going to probably see another five to six hundred cars Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 42 of 56 coming through there easy. And right now it's extremely dangerous. That was my only point. The other one would be I am concerned with all the construction coming in and out of there. Loggers Pass is not a very long street, as you can tell from your plat, it's only about 50 feet long, and it won't take much to clog up that -- that road at 7:00 in the morning when the earth movers come in, cement trucks and else. Kids are trying to get on the bus and off the bus, we are going to have a real problem there and it's going to happen once or -- not soon, but it's going to happen if we don't slow it down. So, all that is the only way you can get in and out of that subdivision. I know there is a proposal to go the other way to the north, but that -- currently that land is private, they are not going to sell it. There is no way to get there. So, that's my concern. I know development happens in the valley. That's just part of the nature of the business. But if there is some way we can try to control what is occurring on that property, just for the safety issue, then, those children -- they ride their bikes up and down that hill, they like to -- on their skateboards and everything else and, like I said, that hill is blind, you cannot see anybody on either side of that. Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Hart, just -- Rohm: Mr. Hart. Borup: Just so -- Hart: Commissioner. Borup: I was trying to understand some -- a couple things you said, but one -- it sounds like you were saying you felt there would be less cut-through traffic if there was access to Meridian Road? Hart: Yes. Borup: You don't think people would cut through here to get to Meridian Road. mean -- Hart: Cut through -- they are already cutting through. Borup: But they have got to go clear up to Overland now or down Calderwood. Hart: Oh, yeah, but at 8:00 o'clock in the morning or 5:00 in the afternoon traffic on Victory backs up almost to our entryway. Borup: So, you feel that if this went through here you would have less traffic on Andros? Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 43 of 56 Hart: Yeah. At least for that subdivision. They have another way to get to where they are going without going through either Meridian Greens or us. Now, I can't -- Borup: But how about all the traffic coming down that wants to cut through? Hart: Well, that's another issue that we have been trying to address. Borup: Right. Hart: With that development across the street and -- Borup: Well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by cut through. I wasn't considering this as cut-through traffic. It would be the same as if this subdivision, when it was put in, included those lots to start with. Hart: And I agree with you. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying we are going to just build on a problem that already exists. Borup: Yeah. It's a busy intersection already. Hart: Yeah. And it's not a very long street, so it won't take much to pile it up. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would you like to come forward, ma'am? J. Hart: My name is Judy Hart. I live at 2961 South Andros. My backyard is going to be the entrance to this subdivision. I think it's a great subdivision, I'm very happy with the amount of homes. The problem I have is is that usually the subdivisions have nice entryways. There is not going to be one. It's just right there in my backyard. As you can see, then, they start their houses. So, I would like to know how you get away without having some type of entry, whether there is -- how is there going to be a sign so people know that that is the Bitterbrush thing -- so I'm concerned about that, too. Also, you know, there is right there off of Meridian Road they have that -- the nursery has that area where they sell all the rocks and everything, there is an access road there that -- like Mrs. Alloway said, that they come and use for construction, instead of bringing all that through onto South Andros Way. So, I'd like to address another -- I just find it very odd that you go through a subdivision to get into another subdivision, that you have their entrance right in another subdivision. I thought that was, you know, kind of an odd thing. Borup: But that's one of the purposes of this stub street that's already in existence. That was intended that that would be developed in the future and have more lots over there. That's why that was designed that way to start with. That's a requirement of ACHD. J. Hart: Well, then, how -- well, that's fine. But I was wondering how do you designate that subdivision? What's their entrance -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 44 of 56 Borup: What's the entrance between Meridian Greens and Observation Point now? J. Hart: Oh, good point. There is homes. Borup: I mean is there a subdivision designation there? J. Hart: No. You're correct on that. Borup: Okay. So, it would be the same thing, I guess. J. Hart: But it's not the main entrance. Borup: Right. J. Hart: Observation Point has their main entrance on Victory and Meridian Greens has theirs on Overland. So, it's just a street that goes through. But these people, you know Borup: They may want to put something. Sometimes I have seen small signs. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Hart? Borup: That would be up to the developer. Newton-Huckabay: In the Cedar Springs development and Sienna Creek, they have done that, they kind of flow together seamlessly and they have made an attempt to make some kind of entrance so you know you are going into -- it's Sienna Creek; right? Is it Sienna? Okay. That actually looks more awkward, in my opinion, than if they would have just made it look like it was a part of Cedar Springs, because you have -- you're driving along through the subdivision and, then, you hit the subdivision sign and just a bit of landscaping trying to designate it and think you might get more -- I think that can backfire on you. I think it might look better in my mind if it just looks like a part of Observation Point. J. Hart: Well, that's what we wondered when we first heard about the proposal. It's a great proposal. One thing we wondered, why couldn't it just be part of Observation Point, instead of having to be a whole different subdivision? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I can't speak to that, but -- Borup: Observation Point's already a platted subdivision that's already done with. It's got to be a new subdivision. J. Hart: Okay. Thank you. I - Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 45 of 56 Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this? Rosette: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Jim Rosette, Meridian Greens Subdivision, 2316 South Montego Way. And I have been to the Commissioners' meeting more than once on some of the other subdivisions that are going in around Meridian Greens. I have no problems with this subdivision per se. And, staff, can you flip to the previous slide before this? The one -- yeah. The stub. So, in essence, that stub that goes to the north is, for all practical purposes, really not existent, because that area to the north may not be developed. My concern is that, again, I echo these other three people that were up here before -- two people. The traffic that's going to go through Meridian Greens is going to be almost triple. You're looking at almost 40 homes here -- Borup: Twenty-one. Rosette: Okay. Twenty-one. Newton-Huckabay: No. Twenty-seven. Rosette: Okay. Twenty-one. So, you're looking at -- in the neighborhood of about 40 vehicles going through this -- probably our subdivision, adding to this, the confusion that's going through Meridian Greens right now. We contacted ACHD and tried to get more stop signs, speed bumps, they wouldn't do anything about it. We have got a lot of traffic going through Calderwood, cutting through at Calderwood onto Overland now, what's going to happen is -- and I have talked to people from Observation Point, they use Meridian Greens as a short cut to get to Overland going north. They don't go onto Victory or they don't go over to Meridian-Kuna Highway, they, essentially, go through the Meridian Greens Subdivision to get to their -- to Overland going north. Borup: The Observation Point people do that you say? Rosette: The Observation Point people do that right now. So, in essence, these 21 homes at an average of about two cars per home -- Borup: And I misspoke, it is 27. Rosette: Twenty-seven. Okay. In the neighborhood of about 30, then. You're looking at all that traffic going north, coming off of Andros there, coming through Meridian Greens, because if you look at the way the traffic flows down, like I say, most of it is going north. Anyway, I'd like to echo the last three individuals that were up here. The Meridian Greens right now cannot do anything about the traffic flow down 5th and 3rd Way. ACHD won't listen to us and we have had a lot of almost accidents within our subdivision and it sounds like Observation Point does, too. So, anyway, thank you very much. Rohm; Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 46 of 56 Canfield: My name is Mark Canfield. I'm the developer -- one of the developers of Bitterbrush Point and I would like to speak to some of the concerns that have been raised here this evening. Rohm: Before you -- before you do that, let's make sure that we don't have any additional concerns before we address them and, then, it will just be a one shot deal. So, if you'll bear with me for a moment, we will make sure that that's the case. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this hearing? Okay. There you go. Now you're on. Canfield: Thank you very much. First off, this piece of property has been a gravel pit since 1957. When we first acquired it there was a hole about 250 feet deep and since we have that we filled the hole back in, tried to make it safe. There was some real concerns by the folks in Observation Point that it was an attractive nuisance, so we have tried to be a good neighbor by trying to get the hole filled in, landscaped, and take care of the weeds that existed on the site. Secondly, the access that we do have now is an easement off of Highway 69, Meridian-Kuna Highway. The easement with that goes away when it ceases to be a gravel pit by the state of Idaho. So, that access will be lost. However, I do believe that through the construction process we may be able to continue to use that for an access point to eliminate construction traffic in front of the homes in Observation Point and Meridian Greens with the permission of the state of Idaho or potentially we are still, I guess, technically, an earth moving gravel situation there, but-- Borup: That's what I was wondering. Until that subdivision is platted -- Canfield: Yes. So, hopefully, we can continue to use that through the construction phase and eliminate, you know, heavy truck traffic, construction equipment, et cetera, by using that easement point. Also the concerns about the traffic through Observation Point, I understand and can sympathize with. The stub street that we do have to the north, we have been approached within the last week by another developer who has, we believe, purchased about seven acres north of there, so I do believe there are going to be plans to come along fairly quickly for a development that would, then, give a controlled access point out onto the Meridian-Kuna Highway. One other thing I might add, too, is the concern about the fencing where the property overlooks Victory Greens. There is about a 30 feet elevation change between where we sit up above and where Meridian Greens is down below. So, fencingwise I don't feel that blocking that is a real necessary objective. You don't see all the equipment and everything from where you are up on top. You can see the top of the trees and the vegetation, which I think is a very nice view and I think to screen it out would kind of be a tragedy. Rohm: Just one more thing. On the subdivision signage do you have any comments on that at all? Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 47 of 56 Canfield: We struggled long and hard with that as well, but we feel that trying to put something up there may create more of a billboard effect than something that, you know, just kind of flows from one development to the other to try to put some large signage up with lighting or whatever it may take to announce it. I don't know that that's the goal that we wanted to achieve that way. We are certainly not opposed to spending the money on a nice monument with a sign on it, but, again, I don't know that it's -- the effect or the location or how it would work. We couldn't come up with a plan that really made a lot of sense to us. Rohm: Okay. Well -- and I think that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay spoke to that before you got up. So, thank you. Borup: Mr. Canfield? Canfield: Yes. Borup: I guess I'd just like to echo my feelings on that -- on that construction entrance from Meridian. I think that, obviously, for the people that live there that's an important matter and I think that makes a lot of sense that that's the way it should go. I don't know if you need specific written permission from the state or by the time they found out about it you would be done, but -- Canfield: Well, we still would maintain a stockpile of gravel on the site in order to -- Borup: The real world. Canfield: -- in order to maintain that exemption status, so -- and we could make it a condition with the contractors that that is the site that has to be used for ingress and egress. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? I have got a question about that. Who owns the underlying fee? Is it the Meridian Greens folks? Okay. So, it's possible, then, you could negotiate with them for a temporary construction easement. Rohm: Go ahead and respond to that at the mike if you would, please. Canfield: I do believe it's the state of Idaho that does regulate the access to that point into and out of there. But Oaas Laney just recently purchased that and we have an agreement with them to use part of that for a sewer easement, but the actual curb access onto the highway state of Idaho regulates. We tried to get an access point out there and the state of Idaho said no. Period. No. Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that we would like to see you have an alternate construction entrance during the majority of the subdivision development itself. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 48 of 56 Canfield: I believe we can accommodate that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? I'm not going to be a killjoy about this, but I think I better bring it up just because it's something that's in the back of my mind. If there were to be an accident on the state highway I would feel bad for not at least bringing it to your attention. And that's having big trucks turning in -- left into this site across where people are going 55. If you actually bring them to the intersection that's going to be signalized this next year when the actual construction traffic for this subdivision is going to be coming on the site, it may be a little safer and just bring that up just because we are requiring that access to go away when Victory Greens goes away and so it will be there for seven or eight more years is what they have leased from Oaas Laney, but it's really not a good idea to have those large trucks trying to slow down in the middle of a state highway at 55 miles an hour and turn left across traffic to get on a dirt road that has a pretty steep incline, we are talking two, three trailers on some of these big trucks that have -- you know, so I'm not trying to -- Borup: What if it's a right-in, right-out? Hood: And that may be better. You still have trucks trying to, you know, slow down and get off the interstate where there isn't a decellane, but that helps, I think. Just to bring - - just a thought that came into my mind. I'm sorry to -- Rohm: No. That's what we have these hearings for. Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: And to piggy back on top of that, if you're going to fashion a condition of approval in that regard, you might want to get on the up and up with Idaho Transportation Department, so they can use that with their approval. They would probably -- you would probably want to have them give thumbs up or thumbs down on that. Something to consider. Rohm: Yeah. I was kind of thinking that we would just suggest that they attempt to create something where they minimize the obstruction -- or the construction traffic to the existing property owners and just leave it at that. Baird: That would work. Rohm: Rather than make it a condition of approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3. 2006 Page 49 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I don't -- I'm possibly in agreement. We don't need to make it a condition of approval, but I would like -- I don't think we should abandon the idea of creating -- exploring that option of that as a construction entrance, even if it were as a right-in, right-out. I don't want -- I very clearly think it should be at least explored. Rohm: I don't disagree with that. I just -- if we make it a condition of approval that they use that and, then, there is objections from Idaho Department of Transportation or ACHD, then, are we right back to square one. And so I hesitate to make it a condition of approval I guess is my -- that's just my thoughts. Hood: Mr. Chair? You can sure word a condition if approved by ITD thou shalt use Meridian Road as your access for construction traffic and, then, if ITD doesn't approve it, they are back to going through the subdivision. And so a substitute condition you have left yourself that out if they don't get approval from the agency granting that permit, if that's the direction you choose. Rohm: Okay. All right. Newton-Huckabay: That would be my preference to have that -- at least that strong wording. Rohm: Okay. Good. Borup: I agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I actually had a couple of questions. I think Caleb answered one. The Victory Road intersection improvement is 2007? Hood: Yeah. I think construction and -- Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton- Huckabay -- that is up for construction I think this fall even, with opening in 2007. Or it's construction and open in 2007, too. I can't remember exactly. But it's in the next 12 or 15 months anyway, there should be a signalized intersection at Victory and State Highway 69. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, Eagle -- the Eagle and Victory there is '08, too, which -- Hood: I think that one got pushed back a year. Newton-Huckabay: '09? Hood: Because it was scheduled to '07. No, it was scheduled for this next year and I think they pushed that back to '08. Newton-Huckabay: And where is Locust Grove in the mix on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 50 of 56 Hood: The overpass is -- well, they are working on the Fairview to Franklin section this year, I believe. Same with -- the overpass ran into some snags and I can't remember what it was right now. Newton-Huckabay: When we had the hearing for property they had to move a house or something. Hood: Yeah. But that's -- they are all within, you know, a year of each other, all those projects. Newton-Huckabay: Will that overpass create the signalized access at Locust Grove and Victory there as well? Does that project put the light in? Hood: I have not heard about a signal there. Borup: That's a mile away. Hood: Probably not far off, but -- Newton-Huckabay: What's the -- Borup: Overland. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it's -- I was off. Borup: A mile. Newton-Huckabay: Well, when I was a kid here it was a block. Okay. So, that intersection we don't -- Locust Grove and Victory -- I don't remember seeing it either, so -- okay. Hood: I imagine it's on a plan somewhere. I don't think it's in the top, you know, five years to be signalized. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And a stop sign in neighborhoods, you just have to apply to ACHD for those? Is that how -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, what happens with your final plat when it goes to ACHD, they actually have a traffic engineer look at the subdivision, say you need a stop sign on this side of the intersection, on that side of the intersection, or where ever they deem them necessary. So, that's how stop signs get put in. Now, after the fact if a -- some folks, a homeowners association or something thinks that they need one somewhere else, they will reevaluate it after the fact, but initially that's how your stop signs get put in with your subdivisions is the traffic services person at ACHD. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 51 of 56 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just -- I had one question that probably needs to be addressed to staff and that's on the house orientation and I think that mostly makes sense. I think -- I think it complicates things to get too restrictive on construction requirements, but I notice you do have that in the site specific requirements. So, I did have a comment on three of the lot requirements. The reasoning is so that -- like side yards or against like yards, but three of the lots with the designated orientation that it does not accomplish that, because each lot side is different, so it's going to be unlike no matter which way the house is oriented. So, I'm wondering if it makes that much difference on those -- I'm specifically talking about Lot 4, Block 1, and, then, Lot 3 and Lot 14, just those three lots, that if that's a little restrictive to specify the exact orientation on those. Plus, it gets complicated on staff -- I mean on enforcing that for the department, too. Comments there. Hess: Commissioner Borup, I guess that's entirely at your discretion whether or not you would like to strike that from the staff report. The reasoning behind that was -- I mean if you look at the site plan here, these lots are all oriented northwest and the majority of this lot -- or north-south, sorry. And the majority of this lot does -- or north-south. Sorry. And the majority of this lot does orient north-south and the same with this one down here, these are all, you know, angular and this direction, you know, parallels this one as well, so -- Borup: Which would put the front of this looking at the backyard of that one. Hess: Well, like you said, regardless -- Borup: Right. Hess: -- it's going to -- Borup: Well, and say it may be able to go in at an angle. It's going to depend on the house design and such on those two. Same thing here. Could be somewhat of an angle. I don't know how much room there would be there. And this one could go -- either way you're going to be against the backyard. Again, you know, just getting too restrictive just makes it harder for enforcement is my only thought on that. The others I don't think -- you know, the others that are designated, you know, there is probably not any other direction they would be able to put a house on anyway. Except for -- well, that corner one maybe. Is that a concern for any of the Commissioners or it doesn't matter? Rohm: Well, your point is well taken. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 52 of 56 Moe: Yeah. I agree. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're suggesting, then, that we strike -- Borup: Well, I'm saying that's a concern. Newton-Huckabay: You pointed out -- on three you pointed out I think you have a valid point and I would particularly -- at the bottom. I can't see what number that one is. Is that three? Borup: Three. Newton-Huckabay: On three -- well, all three of those. Borup: A lot of it's going to depend on the house design, which you don't know what's going to happen there. I would hope that the builder would be cognizant of that and -- I mean if they do something that's going to be too obnoxious it's going to hurt their sales value, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a suggested rewording in that? Borup: Well, someone -- if we have it in there, someone's got to try to enforce it and I -- Rohm: I'm not opposed to just striking that one. Borup: Oh, the whole thing? And the others -- I mean the others make sense that they should be oriented that way, but it's probably the way they are going to be built anyway. There is not a lot of choice. Moe: I guess I would ask one question. I mean I'm in agreement with you, but at the same point I did not hear the applicant -- Borup: I know. I should have brought it up to the applicant. I probably should have asked them that, but -- Moe: They did not take exception to it within the report, so -- Borup: But they are not building the houses or trying to enforce that it happens that way. Moe: Again, I think that's a valid point there, so -- I have no problem with -- Newton-Huckabay: I suggest we strike 1.2.6. Moe: I agree with you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 53 of 56 Borup: All of it, rather than just those specific lots? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Rohm: Any other discussion of this application before we close it? Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to word smith a construction entrance? Borup: I think what was just stated, whoever stated that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, nobody is going to claim it, so -- Borup: I didn't say it. That it shall be used as a construction entrance if approved by ITD? Something to that effect. Moe: Actually, you have been taking great notes. I hope you're anticipating making a motion. Borup: Me? Moe: I haven't. Borup: I didn't have any notes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. One -- do you want to close the hearing? Rohm: Well, let me just state two things that -- from the staff report perspective that need to be stricken and before -- on items 1.2.5 strike 36 and put 34 feet there and, then, strike all of 1.2.6. And those are the only two changes -- Hess: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's, actually, 34 feet and 36 feet. There just needs to be an addition. Rohm: Oh, 34 and 36. Okay. Thank you. And, then, strike the 1.2.6 and then -- Borup: The other option of that would say it's recommended that they orient that way, but not required. I don't know if it's that important. Rohm: Well, I think that if -- I think that if you strike it they are going to orient those houses one way or the other anyway, so that -- I don't think that we have to speak to that if -- from your comment. Newton-Huckabay: Amanda, do you have a preference that you would like to recommend houses are oriented that way? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 54 of 56 Hess: Well -- obviously, we had a preference, because we -- sorry, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Obviously, we had a preference, because it was included in the staff report, but -- Newton-Huckabay: No, I'm not asking the preference whether or not -- we are going to change it, we are either going to recommend striking it or we are going to recommend just recommending it. Hess: Right. Newton-Huckabay: So, I'm asking your preference -- Hess: It'd probably be easier, I would imagine, just to strike it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Do we need a 1.2 point something for the construction entrance or -- Moe: 1.2.11. Borup: Or it could be six. Replace it with the one you struck. Newton-Huckabay: Just replace it with -- okay. I'll do that. We will do that. Rohm: Okay. Then, at this point let's close the -- close the meeting. Borup: Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036 and PP 06-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036 and PP 06-039, both related to Bitterbrush Point Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on. Cole: Mr. Chair, if I may. I'm sure Commissioner Newton-Huckabay remembered, but if you could change -- Public Works comment 2.2 to reference the memo I would appreciate it. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. I'm writing my 1.2.6. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 55 of 56 Rohm: Good. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Applicant will use the current access on Meridian Road as a temporary construction access if approved by lTD. Do we need to put a right-in, right- out preference or ITD would probably make that -- Rohm: I think ITD would make that determination. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-036 and PP 06- 034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006, with the following modifications to the condition of approval: The first one being that condition 1.2.5 will be reworded to say dedicate and construct all internal roadways at 34 and 36 foot street sections. And the remainder of the sentence will remain the same. Item 1.2.6 in its current state will be removed and replaced with: Applicant will use the current access on Meridian Road as a temporary construction access if approved by lTD. And, finally, item number 2.2 in the staff report that starts with the applicant shall be responsible to install a temporary off-peak pumping station, et cetera, will be replaced with the new comment from the memo from Mike Cole dated August 1 st, 2006, with his new 2.2 comment that begins with: The applicant shall be responSible to install a temporary peak flow storage system in a location coordinated with the Public Works Department, et cetera and so forth to the end of his comment on that memo. Is that -- end of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-036 and PP 06-039, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you for coming in. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?