Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 21, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 3 of 86 any additional weight to bring the same information before the Commission. So, with those things being said -- oh. And, then, once all testimony, the applicant has the opportunity to make final testimony. And that's the process and, then, we will close the hearing and render a decision. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you begin the Public Hearing, it appears your mike is still not working properly and getting you on the record. We may need to use this mike instead, because we don't seem to be getting it through the system. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP 06-040. Both of these items related to Shepherd Creek Subdivision and begin with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was actually on your agenda on August 17th and it was opened for the purpose of continuing it, so we could get ACHD's comments and their commission action on this project. That, in fact, happened yesterday afternoon and I will give you an update on that shortly. So, the two applications in front of you tonight -- the first one is a miscellaneous application to amend the existing development agreement on the 32 acres highlighted here in the display. There are 55 single family buildable lots and one church lot proposed and seven common lots. The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road about a half mile south of Overland. The current development agreement in effect for this site does restrict the uses to being the church as that was envisioned in 2001 when this property was annexed into the city. There is a development agreement provision restricting church and associated uses to the site. Therefore, they need that miscellaneous now. Normally, a miscellaneous application would only go to the City Council, but because they need to amend the DA to get the residential portion of this subdivision approved, that is also on your agenda this evening, so I just wanted to point that out to you that in most instances you wouldn't make a formal recommendation on a miscellaneous application. I'm going to go to the aerial real quick. This is a slide I think we will probably use a little bit this evening. It kind of helps put the neighborhood in perspective and shows you kind of what's going on in the area. The 2005 aerial was with the preliminary plats that have been approved to date by the city, also with a lighter Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 4 of 86 overlay on this same site. So, to the north and to the west are Bear Creek Subdivision. To the south is Strada Bellissima. There are homes in Bear Creek Subdivision. The city park. Strada Bellissima is single family homes and, then, there is some offices fronting on Meridian Road there. There are a couple of accesses to State Highway 69 north of the subject site, one at the southern boundary at the church property, Miestra -- I believe is how it's pronouced -- Street there and, then, Victory would just be out of the picture here. So, that's kind of what's happening in the vicinity. If you look further to the west, Stoddard is at the half mile and, then, you have got Bear Creek West, also a recently approved city subdivision, and some other projects on the east side of Meridian Road and I don't know that we need to jump into that, but I just wanted to acquaint you a little bit there. So, the major structure on this site is going to be the church, obviously, for the Nazarene church there on Meridian Road and that's under construction. If you have driven out there in the past couple few months you have seen them under construction there. They are included with the subdivision. That was a requirement of their Conditional Use Permit that all 32 acres be subdivided and so they have submitted the application for all of -- all of the property that the church owned as of last year. Twelve acres, as I understand, has been sold off and that's the residential portion of the subdivision. As far as the subdivision itself goes for the existing R-8 zoning, It's pretty clean. All of the lots conform to the minimum lot size, minimum frontage requirements of R-8 zone. That being said, it's my belief -- and I don't -- I did go through the minutes back in late 2000, early 2001, that this site obtained R-8 zoning not for medium density residential, because with the old code a church was allowed with the Conditional Use Permit with the R-8 zoning. R-4 zoning, which is more consistent with kind of this general area, churches are prohibited. So, if they would have gotten an R-4 zone, they wouldn't have even been able to build what was envisioned at the time and is under construction today. So, the staff report recommends that to fit in with the area and what's already been constructed in this section, at least half of this section, that the densities be consistent with the R-4, not the R-8 zoning. I did not recommend that they actually file a rezone and rezone it to R-4, just strictly that the lots conform to the R-4 standards. So, I did want to point that out as one of the major changes that staff is recommending. The other one would be the disputed collector roadway. I'm going to grab a pointer here real quick. Just a second. So, Kodiak Drive actually exists today. Let me go back to the -- I'm not sure I can point it out exactly. I think it's right here -- is the Kodiak Drive today. Kodiak within this project is right here. There is on the plan a cross-hatched or lightly shown disputed collector roadway out to Meridian Road. I'll kind of explain a little bit of how that at least got shown as being a disputed collector roadway. It's something that has been discussed, even when the church was being annexed into the site was the potential need for a roadway out to Meridian Road at the half mile. The applicant did show that on -- at our request did put that collector roadway on, so we could have this discussion tonight and in front of the City Council of whether a collector roadway is needed in this section or not. So, we did get -- at least get them to reluctantly put it on, but make no mistake, they are not proposing that roadway and now I think I'll probably jump in and let you know that ACHD, in fact, is not supporting that roadway and they had an opportunity twice, actually, to -- and they came to the same conclusion both times, that they are not supportive of that connection to Meridian Road. That being said, it is a state highway and under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 5 of 86 Transportation Department. They have approved an access point in theory. There is no permit that's been granted, but I do have a letter from Sue at ITO saying that they are supportive of an access point at the mid mile for this project. It does get a little sticky with ACHD saying we are not supportive of the roadway. The city does have policies as well about access to type four roadways, all state highways that are on the boundaries or bisect the city. We do have policies about them being at the mid mile and the mid mile only, as well as collector policies within the Comprehensive Plan and trying to get that, you know, to collect and distribute traffic, essentially, is the idea behind the collector roadways. The longer term goal I think is why staff is making this so hard on the applicant, is there is a vision here. It's not -- it's not just something that we'd like to put Matt through the wringer, I don't think, but there is an overall vision for this area and to make it work we are looking to have that collector at the mid mile or some public street at the mid mile, because the problem there is that Miestra Street, Calderwood, and, then, there is another access I cannot remember the name of it, but I'm sure there is a neighbor -- thank you. Davenport. That's in the -- on the west side of State Highway 69 today. None of those access points meet ITD's policy for access, location, on type for a roadway. They also would not conform to our UDC requirements today and the idea, especially with Miestra and all of them eventually -- I envision something similar to an Eagle Road where they could be restricted to right-in, right-out, in the future by ITO and if, in fact, this signal occurs, there is -- by the way, there is a signal that will be constructed here this year at Victory and Meridian Road. Of course, it's already signalized at Overland. But if there is going to be a signal in that mile section, it's going to have to occur somewhere at or near the mid mile point. So, that's why staff is pushing for that so hard. I know a lot of people -- I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't know the numbers. I know there was a traffic study done for only 55 lots and they have spent a lot of time -- they being the applicant has spent a lot of time showing how traffic will be distributed out of this project and through this project. But, you know, my guess would be 85 to 90 percent of the traffic wants to go north. They are either going, you know, to the interstate or going downtown, you aren't -- you just aren't. The dominant direction of travel is not going to be south. That being said, if you restrict the access points here in the future to right-in, right-out, people have to backtrack. They either have to go back out to Stoddard, up to Overland, and back out or down to Victory to hit this light and, then, back up. So, that's it in a nutshell. I think, hopefully, the staff report made some sense, too, and further explained again why city staff thought this was an important discussion to have, because I think it really hinders the future of this area. And I should make it clear, I don't -- it's not warranted I don't think today to have this a three-legged intersection at this point that -- without a signal. Without a signal it doesn't function any better than the current quarter mile access points. Thinking long term, though, and having that be a signalized access in the future to me makes some sense. Again, a traffic engineer would probably say it's not warranted, it's not warranted, it's not warranted. That may be the case if you just look at sheer numbers, but I think if you look at the overall area and, again, with the city park being here, a school slated for here, you're going to get folks that want to use this. Now, I don't think -- you will probably hear from some neighbors tonight, because I have talked to a couple of them anyways that are concerned about the existing streets and having people cut through, basically, on some of these other streets, Kodiak and some of the other ones internally, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 6 of 86 to get to some of these things. Those are legitimate concerns to a certain extent. I don't think that the traffic volumes on any of those local roads will exceed the 2,000 vehicle trips a day that ACHD allows for a local street, even if there were this collector roadway put in with Shepherd Creek. But let me finish out the rest of the story, I guess. So, that would get us a three-legged intersection if we got a collector at the northern part. There is a terrible offset with Roslyn Court on the other side -- on the east side of Meridian Road. These two parcels have yet to be annexed into the city. I imagine it won't be too terribly long before they are wanting to develop them. They are highly visible parcels, underutilized at this point. When they come in, either together or independently, staff will look for the requirement that they either exchange or vacate the right of way that is now Roslyn Court and shift that down to align where ever this, hopefully, potential collector roadway lines up with that property. So, that finishes off, so you have a four-legged intersection. That also allows -- there is very limited access. Mussell Corner Subdivision, which is currently the landscape nursery, has a couple of accesses today. The northern access will go away with the redevelopment of their rock area back here. So, that access is slated to go away. There is interconnectivity on this backside. Bitterbrush Subdivision, I believe was the name of this project, there is a stub -- we are currently working with some folks on developing this parcel. You have, essentially, a backage road or a frontage road that could tie in and, again, help the four legs of that intersection function efficiently and folks in Meridian Greens or in this general viCinity could also access this light. For them it would be a little -- it would be easier, they could make the free right in, but it allows them to get back home a little easier if they could use that light. But I think I'll stop talking about that. That's a huge issue for staff. I mean we have struggled with it. It wasn't an easy thing when you look at the policies, what is going on out there today, our Comprehensive Plan, it's just something that we thought made sense for this area and we are recommending approval of the project with -- again, the density being changed to R-4 type and the collector roadway actually being constructed into the site. With that I think I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Caleb, I'm just a little interested as far as ACHD -- what was their main reason? Hood: Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, I was not at that hearing yesterday. Some other folks in the audience may have some further input. When I was there two weeks prior, the consensus among their board was that they did not want to see another access to the state highway. That was what I came away with. They, to me, weren't sold on the vision that we have, that we see for this area, and having them take some of these access points and combining them into one signalized access in the future. They were just, basically, to put it in a nutshell, were against having another Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 7 of 86 access to the state highway. And the offset. I mean that is something that we can't fix today and if, in fact, you open that up there would be that offset problem, so -- Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, at RMR Consulting, at 2127 South Alaska Way in the Bear Creek Subdivision, just coincidentally, representing this application, which is the Shepherd Creek Subdivision on 32 acres, located on Meridian -- South Meridian Road. I'm going to have to speak fast to get all this in in 15 minutes, because there is a lot to cover with the transportation issues and the others issue that have come about and really really kind of surprising for a site that's 12 acres and 55 lots. to have a huge of issues as it seems to have had and I think it's just a bad location near mid mile that's kind of brought this up. But if I could, I -- I will have Caleb show if you could -- like an overall, just to get our bearings of, really, where we are at and maybe -- I know a lot of my fellow neighbors are here and they don't know as much about what projects are coming in the area that might help the regional traffic that seem to be happening out in this area. Here we have Meridian Road through the middle, which is a state highway. Overland Road on the north. Victory Road on the south. Locust Grove on the east. Linder on the west. This is two square miles. These are existing lots as they stand platted today. In this section we have over -- about 1,100 lots existing. Meridian Greens, Sportsman's, Observation Point, Glacier Springs. We have Bear Creek over here. Elk Run. Strada Bellissima. We have got about 600 existing lots over here, with another 321 approved at Bear Creek West. There is a middle school proposed sometime in the future. We have a community park that serves more than just Bear Creek, it serves the whole area. Some of the transportation things that are happening -- right now everybody funnels down Meridian Road in south Ada County and even from South Nampa. I know, I used to live in South Nampa, I'd come this way, cut up Columbia Road, up Meridian Road, and so everybody in the morning collects right here. It backs up Meridian Road. It backs up Overland. Some of the things that are coming in very soon -- we have a signal coming in at Victory as we speak, it's under construction, which is a good thing. They are widening Overland from here to Linder this next year and putting in a signal at Stoddard, which is another good thing. They are going to improve this intersection. We have got the Locust Grove overpass going in here very soon I keep hearing for the last several years, but I hear it's coming quick. And, then, we have Ten Mile interchange one mile down the road, which is coming quite soon, too. So, we have, I believe, over 40 million dollars slated in the next five years, if you include the Meridian couplet as well, that's going to go within the couple of square miles, which is a good thing. It's a very convenient location where we live, but there is some congestion that is here. It's caused not by Bear Creek, not by these people, but it is a regional-type traffic issue that we have and we have a state highway going right through the middle that ITO has -- has jurisdiction over. So, I just wanted to get everybody's bearings about where we are. We are actually right here on the 12 acres. That's a residential portion. The front end is around 20 acres of church that they are retaining for their church site. If you could go to the next one, please, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 8 of 86 Caleb. Thanks. That's a little squished. It got scanned in, but that shows kind of a zoomed in area of the Elk Run, which was done in '95 -- '93 and '95. Calderwood was put in at that time. They did some fore planning, which was the best available information at the time to put a collector through there. So, that's where a lot of traffic for Bear Creek does go out right now. They are doing a Schuck's right here on the corner. They are building one and there is some more going in. Bear Creek was done between 2000 and there is still one vacant lot down here, but they are pretty much done, 350 odd lots. Strada Bellissima was done in the last couple of years. They have just recorded their second phase. About 100 lots here, 350 here, and 100 lots here, so there is 550 lots existing around this in this half section. We do have a mid mile collector. We have Stoddard Road, which is a good traffic access signal and out to Overland or out to Victory with signals. So, there is exceptional access out as we speak. It is -- it doesn't appear to, because of that bottleneck at Meridian Road, but, truly, when we do get these other improvements in there, it will function fairly well out here. We need that mid mile collector for the school and some other things, but -- from the park. But the traffic flows good through Bear Creek, it's a relatively low density, it's under three to the acre. This whole area is under three to the acre. You're not going to run into traffic issues, usually, at three to the acre. You're not -- when you start getting high high density, that's when you're going to run into them. So, it functions as we would expect. We did do a traffic analysis of the whole thing and how we related to it, just to be safe, so we knew what was going on, even though ACHD didn't require it. The church was annexed -- or, excuse me -- yes, annexed and given a development agreement several years ago under an R-8 zone for purposes of the church. I have seen their old site plan. They had a recreational complex back here in the back originally. They had their church up front. Over the years they have seen Bear Creek come in, they have seen a community park come in, they have seen a need to -- that the park isn't making much sense anymore, obviously, that is just one right here a hundred yards away, so just this last February 16th they saw a need to generate some income to fund their new church and they did a legal split of this, so it was legally separated out. The parcel has three accesses, 12 acres exactly. They just decided on 12 acres. That's what was going to go to auction and they did sell it off and got a good price for it and my client purchased this knowing that it was R-8. We knew there was a development agreement on it, but it's -- I'm here to say that R-8 is still the appropriate density, even though -- or R-8 is the appropriate zoning, even though maybe that wasn't the real reason, you know, the church went was to have homes in the back, because that wasn't their intent from the beginning. But as times have changed and we have seen the land values go up 700 percent in the last six years, you know, things have changed a little bit in terms of how we -- how we create lots, what we think are good lots, what we think are -- you know, things have changed since the late '90s. So, I'm here on behalf of both applicants. This is a joint application. This board or Commission granted a CUP back on February 16th for the church. That was a final action. They pulled a building permit. They are moving forward. However, one of the conditions was that they resubmit with us. So, we are separate owners, jointly attached in one application before you tonight. I mean they are under construction, so they are moving ahead regardless, and there has been some issues with respect to the -- the collector through here and some other things that have been a little bit of complications. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 9 of 86 we are a little bit divergent with my neighbors on the zoning. I know we are united on the collector, that it's -- that it's a bad idea to retrofit a low density subdivision with a high -- high volume potential road, to summarize it in a nutshell. And we had a lengthy discussion at ACHD regarding the merits, the warrants, bad idea, good idea, if it was good planning or bad planning, it was unanimous yesterday. It wasn't because -- they kind of revised their original recommendation. It wasn't because of access, because I'm saying if these people need a signal later, maybe there will be warrants for that signal. Just don't connect it to Bear Creek. There is no need for it. We have got great access out to Victory, out to Stoddard, you know, out to Meridian Road. There is no need for it, there is no warrant for it, and to come in after the fact, it's just going to -- it mayor may not cause cut-through traffic, I wouldn't want to chance it myself. I think it will, but I could be wrong. I wouldn't want to gamble on something that there is no need for and it carves up the church property, they want to do recreational facilities in those areas, it's an additional cost that we could bear if there was a warrant and if it was a good idea we would do that. But for what you get for it, it's not real -- ACHD was -- it was a very lengthy unanimous decision that even if City Council approves it or wants it in the rare likelihood that they would do that, they won't maintain it, they won't take it, they won't recognize it. ITD would allow an intersection if you want one. They are not saying you must have one. They are saying if you want one you can have it at the mid mile and if you have it at the mid mile, you better have a signal. It's so -- it's kind of reverse logic that if you want a signal you better put traffic to it. Well, we don't want to put traffic to it, so there is a little bit of reverse logic going on there and ACHD saw through that and decided adamantly against that. So, I really want to get passed the collector issue. If you have any questions or concerns we can address those, but I want to focus in on the site, which our site works with or without it, we have allowed for it, that if it's needed our site works. If it's not needed our site works. So, we just want to focus in on the subdivision itself and talk about that. The church is here to discuss the church portion. I'm assuming that the church portion is okay, because you have already approved that as a CUP, 50 we are going to focus in on the residential portion and just focus on that and not reiterate things that have already been said, unless you have any questions from back in February for the church, they are here for that. You can go to the next slide, please. We have, like I said, 12, exactly, acres by this width, which is defined by Bear Creek No. 6 on the north, Bear Creek No. 7 on the west, Strada Bellissima on the south -- so, they decided 12 acres exactly, whatever width of that was, that's what the width was and that's what they took to auction and that's what was bought and so there was no prior planning as to what kind of subdivision would fit on that. He was close. What you're left with was we talked to staff, we have three existing stub streets, so we are fixed there. I mean they are there, we can't really ignore them, and a loop, 150 -- 50 foot road, 100 foot deep, 150, 150,50 foot road, 150 -- or 97 feet deep. So, we were fixed on the width. so the question becomes how wide do you make your lots. We looked at the overall densities and just as a point, I was the original project manager on Bear Creek for the last five years. The two years I wasn't, but I have lived there, I have seen every house built in Bear Creek, I know all that has happened. Phase Six was approved as an R-8. They did a little land swap with the church for some stuff up front back a few years ago and they are up near the -- they are 8,000 square foot lots, but they are under 80 feet wide, so there is some R-8 here, but they are bigger -- bigger Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 10 of 86 lots, SO about three and a half -- 3.4 to the acre is what this is laid out at. This phase was replatted as well from the original preliminary plat. It went from 31 to 40 lots. They were 15,000 and they went down to like ten, which are still good size lots. The density comes in at right around just 2.9, close to three. Strada is probably under three. When you look at our sidewalk along here, we have worked with staff, decided these would be R-4 type lots, 14,000, 10,000,9,000, eight -- 8,000 through here. These are like 7,900, 8,000, 7,900, very very close. These are seven thousand square foot lots in here. These lots here that are buffered by our own lots, they are buffered by landscaping down here. They are buffered by some elevation and deeper lots down here. We made -- we made some five and six thousand square foot lots, transitioning this way, transitioning north. We have got a buffer here on the north here. We really tried to blend in and step up the densities. If you look at the density of this here, it's right around three and a half to the acre. If you look at that. Which is very very close to what's north of this here. A little bit more than what's here, but it's not a whole lot different in terms of density. If you look at this area here, we are actually at six. The blended overall is just over four and a half. But it's a mix, it's a blend, so what we did was we were very conscious of lot width, you match up lot widths. We weren't blessed with extra lot depth and, you know, in hindsight we would have liked to have been able to buy 13 acres and have those extra deep, but that's just what was for sale and what was bought. And staff has recommended this type of layout. As far as our overall landscaping -- is there a landscape plan, Caleb, please? We have a common area here that is -- it looks small on here, but if you measure all the common lots in Bear Creek park -- or Bear Creek, except the park, and Strada Bellissima and Elk Run, it's, actually, the biggest usable open space, if you can believe it, compared to what -- what's at Bear Creek and all the other ones, with the exception of the 19 acre park, obviously. We have a pathway that interconnects this way. We have got an additional pedestrian access to the -- to the church. We have got buffers here and here. We showed this stub as a -- if emergency vehicles -- there has been discussion, they mayor may not want additional access, let's use that corridor that we had preserved for a potential collector for emergency and pedestrian access to the church. Just leave it open. It's also a corridor for the future Slack Cat trunk down through here. A corridor for irrigation lines. A corridor for a water line. So, it's a good open corridor for some utilities as well. So, our open space comes in just at six and a half percent. If you count all the open space -- usable open space in the other subdivisions, it's like three. So, we, actually, have more usable percentage of open space than anybody around us, even though we are only 12 acres. So, it's not a lot of space, but percentage-wise we do have good open space. We have listened to the residents. We had a concern about -- you know, you guys aren't doing anything with that space, put something in it. We agreed, okay, even though the Bittercreek Park is only, you know, a hundred yards away, but it is a couple hundred yards more, so let's put a playground in there. So, we are going to put a playground in there. We listened to the residents. Thank you. You know, it fits in that area easily. It's a good playground. We do -- we do have a petition. We do have some other things, but I just hope to be able to come here and speak and tell people what we have and clear up some of the fears. I think there is some misinformation with the petition. I intercepted it myself and heard some things I wasn't aware of and I'm the guy that's in charge of it, so I just wanted to make sure everybody understands what we are Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 11 of 86 proposing here is a quality project. It does fit at an R-8. It matches subdivisions that have been approved, like Tuscany Village, Sutherland Farms, Woodbridge, Messina Meadows, Bear Creek West, Tanana Valley, Reflection Ridge, Jayden Village, Southern Springs -- these are all subdivisions that have blended into these R-8, R-4 mix. They are compatible. These lots here -- it's hard to believe, but land prices are such that these will be more expensive than almost every lot in Bear Creek sold for a few years ago, which is bad, actually. But that's where we are at with the prices. We are talking -- we will be hard pressed to keep them under 300,000 on these lots. These will be in the five to six hundred range. We are way passed affordable here, we are talking reasonable price and 300 is a challenge and that's because at the higher level you just - - things are slow at that price. So, we are trying to get some mix. Some of the church members said they'd like to buy a lot, they are older, some of them, they don't need a bigger lot, so we put that mix in there, potentially, as just an option. Notice everything is not in the manila 80 by 100. Give people an option in there and still have a nice subdivision. I think I have covered everything, other than I want to point out that if we really wanted to do a hard R-8, we could have 65 lots. If we went down to an R-4 that would have been 43 lots. It's an alternative, so it's a pretty easy one to do it on. Just moving a lot width. We are coming in in the middle of that. We will be right there at the 55 lots at around 4.5 to the acre. We were trying to blend the density, transition the density, and provide all the amenities that would be expected of site to site with five acres -- for 55 lots. It's another phase, really, of Bear Creek or Strada Bellissima or whatever. So, I guess with that I'll stand firm. I know there are some people that want to speak from the neighborhood. We do respect them coming and participating in the public process, which I appreciate a lot more than some petitions would have some information that I saw that we were going to be hurting kids and -- you know, and all that with this high density subdivision and that is not even close to the remote truth of what's going on in this area. If I could answer any questions I will right now. If not, I'll reserve them for later. Rohm: That was a great presentation. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: I do have one question, though. As I'm looking at the sign-up sheet here and, quite honestly, the majority of the people that signed up to speak are going to speak. against. Schultz: I saw that. Rohm: And maybe -- normally we don't do it this way, but I'm going to just ask you to -- I'm pretty sure you have a pretty good feel for what some of these major concerns are and maybe rather than have them speak first, let you -- can you speak to some of these -- Schultz: I can go through the petition of you want me to. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 12 of 86 Rohm: Well -- and I don't want to take -- I don't want to take this -- I don't know. Maybe it's a bad idea. Schultz: It's okay. We can go through the process and we can go through it that way. Rohm: The point -- the point that I wanted to make, though, is as you come in with a development application, it always makes it easier for both sides of the table to work with you, if, in fact, you have been able to address the concerns of the community and have some kind of a response in order and it looks like from the number of people that have signed up that we are not quite there yet and that's -- and I -- Schultz: They signed up before they heard my presentation, too, so we will see what they end up saying. Rohm: All right. With that being said, thank you. Really, you did a good job. Schultz: Well, appreciate it. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Again, before we take public testimony, it's real important, because of the number of people that have signed up, that if, in fact, somebody that has spoken before you has spoke to the specific issue that you wanted to bring before the Commission we appreciate it if you would just say I have been spoken for and we will go on to the next one. But by no means is that a request to not get up and speak. So, with that said, the first person signed up is Kelly James. Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. You may want to check, though. I think you were almost there a minute ago. You may want to see if there is someone representing the neighborhood association and give them some extra time if they are speaking on behalf of 10, 12, 15 neighbors that are here. And I know there is at least one that's got a presentation that's ready to roll here, so I don't know how much they are speaking for the neighborhood or not, but to start them is probably -- Rohm: Okay. I'm not opposed to that, so is there a -- well, just a second. Is there a spokesman for the subdivision? If you'd like to come forward, ma'am. And before you start speaking, I'd like to see a show of hands of those that she is speaking for. Wow, that's the majority. Borup: And what he's meaning by the statement, all those that raised their hands, then, would not be speaking. Is that your understanding? Rohm: Right. And that's the purpose. Basically, if you have signed up to speak and she's speaking for you, we are going to take those names off the list, so that's the way that process works and she will be given additional time to speak and, really, I think everybody's best interest is served that way. With that being said, when you start give your name and address, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 13 of 86 Newell-Lemaster: My name is Kimberly Newell-Lemaster. I'm the Homeowners Association President for Bear Creek. Iljve at 2640 South Bear Claw Way in Meridian, Idaho. This is will be a co-presentation with Karen McGordon of Bear Creek also. Bear Creek is a planned community with approximately 354 homes and the values range from 300 to 900 thousand. The density in Bear Creek does average 2.6 homes per acre and the figures that we have for Strada Bellissima is 2.5. Bear Creek West is also 2.5. Bear Creek has a lot of amenities, pedestrian walkways to the Bear Creek Park, lighted streets, and walkways, planted mediums, separate entrances with plants and street trees. Shepherd's Creek, as it is proposed, that 55 homes on 12 acres, does average 4.6 homes and we'd like to point out that we are not against Shepherd Creek Subdivision, we do have traffic issues and we do have density issues. There is no distinct and separate entrance to the development and although he was talking about the amount of green spaces they have and that it's higher than Bear Creek and the Bear Creek Homeowners Association currently pays to maintain 13 acres of common property. Access through Bear Creek and Bellissima and there is no primary outlet burden for the access on Bear Creek. We currently have a petition that has been signed by 243 Bear Creek homeowners that share the same concerns and we have also -- we have eight additional signatures that were added as of 9/20/06. Again, the homeowners concerns with the proposed development and now the Kodiak possible collector street. Access -- our issues are access issues, including the newly proposed collector street and, again, this appears to be by the City of Meridian staff, because ACHD was totally against it and what their concern was when this was brought up on 9/6 was they are about Meridian Road becoming another Eagle Road and we all know what a nightmare that could be. Our other issues are the land use and the density. The lot size, more than the home value. Drainage issues -- we will show you some pictures and Karen will talk about the fact that this 12 acres does sit up. The elevation of it is quite a bit higher and there are drainage issues with homes that border this subdivision on -- it would be the east side of Bear Creek and it would be the west side of the proposed Shepherd's Creek. Other concerns are the amount of open spaces. We feel that they could utilize and maybe combine them into a little bit better utilization for their - - for their own people that would purchase homes in that area. Other issues that we have is there are no covenants, conditions, or restrictions that are being proposed with this subdivision and no transitional entrances, no street planning, anything that would match up with the way that Strada Bellissima is and currently how Bear Creek is designed. Vehicular traffic issues. There are no alternate routes. So, I know that they talk about this great site right in here, this is the proposed Shepherd's Creek and they do have an outlet to the south, which they kind of wind through Strada Bellissima and end up over at Victory, but until the light is complete, which, like Matt was saying, thankfully they are working on, we also believe that it will be as easy or easier for these people to turn down and go out Bear Creek's exit onto Stoddard, which this would be Grisly. There is a stub street that comes in at the end of Bear Track and so they would take Bear Track down to Bear Tooth and go out the Kodiak access, the center entrance of Bear Creek. The stub street that the city is proposing is this one that would come off of this east -- northeast corner of Shepherd's Creek and come across the church property. And so it comes out onto Cub -- I guess this little section right here is currently called Alaska Way. It turns onto Cub, goes down through this section that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 14 of 86 Kodiak and onto Stoddard. And, then, fortunately, we revised our presentation and we don't have the pictures and Matt was talking about how well traffic does move through here, but I have seen traffic during the rush hour in the morning that is backed up back to this center entrance-exit into Bear Creek. So, it's backed up pretty much close to a half a mile from Overland Road on Stoddard, because the traffic is always backed up to Linder Road on Stoddard in the morning. Let's see. Shepherd's Creek -- we -- we are projecting that Shepherd's Creek will create approximately another 500 vehicle -- 550 vehicle trips per day through Bear Creek. Bear Creek generates approximately 3,500 vehicle trips per day and the Bear Creek West we were figuring will project probably to 300 -- or 3,300 vehicle trips per day that will add to the traffic on Stoddard. We also have the other subdivisions, Edgar's, Pebble, Kentucky and Model, which estimate another 1,400 plus vehicle trips per day and with the school that's projected here, we don't have an idea how many that -- but total trips between all of these subdivisions, it's approximately 8,180 vehicle trips per day. Shepherd's Creek traffic will primarily use Bear Creek roads and this just puts a burden on the existing roads with no distinct entrance. Alternate needed to reduce the congestion, they need to have a direct access to Alfini Way that crossed over to Victory Road and when Matt made the comment, we are not saying that we are worried that the children are going to be hurt by this development, we don't dispute that -- that the development could be put in there, we dispute the density and the number of vehicle trips per day that would be added and the connector road that the city is wanting to put in there, because we do think that it will get utilized a lot more. Again, advised by ACHD of the inclusion of Bear Creek -- let's see -- homeowners association and yesterday's 9/20 meeting, we were unaware of any actions the city and the developer had regarding the collector road and maybe at the end of this presentation Mr. Nary could comment on it. We question the legality of the change in the meeting with the ACHD when he wanted to have their recommendations removed from the 9/6 meeting, because it was our understanding the public was supposed to be notified and there were no letters to the people that live within 300 feet of this. They were notified of the original meeting, but no one was notified that he had gone to ACHD and asked to be put on the agenda and, then, I had a phone call and so we were really unable to notify the entire neighborhood. We had two days that we notified the homeowners on Kodiak and on Cub by putting a flier at each of their homes, but we didn't have a chance to notify everyone in the neighborhood. And at this time I'll turn it over to Karen. McGordon: Karen McGordon, 2631 South Hibernation Place, Meridian, and I'm going to cover the next section addressing traffic issues and addressing issues with the collector. I'd like to state first that the Bear Creek residents do oppose and are concerned with the proposed collector street that is currently being proposed by the Meridian Planning and Zoning. I want to present a series of drawings and maps that address related traffic issues specific to the Shepherd's Creek development and the City of Meridian's proposed collector. Starting with the Shepherd's Creek, this map one, the Shepherd's Creek traffic impact as proposed -- Kimberly covered some of that. I just want to go a little further with it. No outlet to a primary road. The burden for traffic does fall on Bear Creek primarily. Currently, with the no light at Victory, people do tend to go out to Stoddard and, then, to Overland. All the traffic does funnel that way and there is no Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 15 of 86 direct fire and emergency access. Boundary of Bear Creek is in that light green color and as Kimberly pointed out, there is those three primary roads that do go out to Stoddard. Now, the subdivision does have their -- does have an alternate -- their route that goes out -- that could go out -- potentially out this direction to Victory, but we also have Miestra here as well, that would not be able to be utilized directly, you'd have to go out and make a circuitous route to get out. So, just to point out that there are also other alternates that -- alternatives to this that we would like to address and I'll address those shortly. I want to address next the proposed collector street. The residents of Bear Creek feel that this collector street would have residual impacts on Kodiak. The existing Kodiak Street does not meet any of the ACHD technical requirement for a collector street, but it would certainly be used as such without benefit of ever having being designed as a collector street. The park's there, a school is proposed, you're going to have another 330 homes in Bear Creek West. We have all the traffic that comes down Victory utilizing Stoddard. People are going to use that. There is a light, there is a way to get to Meridian Road. You're going to pop through that subdivision. So, that's primarily what we will be -- I'm going to be addressing. Kodiak and Cub Streets within the subdivision -- this is Kodiak. Cub goes up here along there. The proposed collector would be at the back doors of all of the individuals whose homes are on Cub Street. The other impacts would be the through traffic that would go through the subdivision. Again, Kodiak and Cub would be directly affected by the collective impacts that this proposal would create. There would be significantly more traffic on a residential road that was not designed as a collector street. The higher speeds. the cars backing on -- into oncoming traffic, there is approximately 50 homes that front -- have direct lot access along this section of the road. There would be conflicts with children playing and pedestrians. There is a large number of children in the subdivision. There is mostly -- primarily young families that live here. It's certainly an issue. It would turn a quiet residential street into a very busy, noisy and unsafe street. The proposed collector street in this situation where it would tie into the existing Kodiak, is not good design and planning. That development was done some time ago. That street was not designed -- the remainder of Kodiak there was not designed as a collector. If a collect street is going to be an element of good planning, it should be designed into the city's Comprehensive Plan. If we know that every half mile we are going to have a collector street, we should be putting that information right in the plan and addressing it at the planning level. It does not consider the impact to the residents and the homeowners that purchased their properties, unknowing that government officials could arbitrarily make changes that had significant impacts on their property value. The values of the homes -- the average from Cub all the way to there is 18 and a half million dollars in value. That's a significant value and a lot of money that these individuals have put into these homes. This collector street would encourage through traffic through Bear Creek and. as I said earlier, the impacts with the other developments along Stoddard. it's going to be significant. This should not be added as an afterthought. Significant issues with Kodiak as a collector and also Kodiak again not designed as a collector street. Next slide. I would like to address in this next series of slides the requirements of residential collector streets and the requirements of collector streets. Starting with the residential collector, the ACHD requirements are on the left, the potential impacts to Bear Creek and the existing Kodiak are on the right. The ACHD requirements for average daily Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 16 of 86 traffic is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. If you look at all the potential that's going to happen, plus what's currently there, we are looking at roughly 8,100, potentially, that could use that street. Vehicle access, the guidance says to discourage direct lot access. Again, on the portion of it that's going to be impacted, there is approximately 50 direct lot access points. Through traffic. The requirements are use for through traffic is discouraged. Through traffic is going to be significant. The park, the school, Bear Creek West, the other subdivisions, are going to contribute to through traffic. The street pattern. The requirement says it should extend no more than 1 ,300 feet into the square mile. Kodiak is going to be used as a collector and it goes clear through, it's full half mile. Again, a continuation on the residential collector street. The requirement, the traffic considerations, the ReS should be such that it doesn't interfere with an area's livability. This proposed collector is going to interfere with the livability of that subdivision and of the people who live along there and live within Bear Creek. The speed control, the RCS, 30 miles per hour is recommended, this Kodiak, if it's going to be used as that, which it will, it has jogs and curves and six intersections and it would not support 30 miles per hour. Pedestrians. There is definitely going to be issues with conflicts with pedestrians. A couple photos of existing conditions within Bear Creek. This is Kodiak on the left. The width of all streets on -- of all sections of Kodiak, with the exception off the entrance off Stoddard is 36 feet wide. There is 90 degree curves on Kodiak. There is a second 90 degree curve where Kodiak and Cub meet. Showing the intersection of Shepherd's Creek Road and Alaska Way, it's currently a 36 foot width and the road alignment Cub from Alaska Way, again, 36 inch -- 36 foot width. If you put -- if cars are parking on the streets, which they do, because a lot of individuals have visitors on a routine basis, you reduce the clear width of that down -- essentially, you take 20 feet out of it. You're down to 16 feet and, granted, it's not that way clear through. But I would not want to see cars parking and increased traffic on this width of a road. And, then, just to show you the 36 inch width. The ReS requires a 36 inch width - 36-foot width. A regular collector street requires 41. Collector street requirements for a full collector street, average daily traffic requirement is 2,500 to 8,500. Again, potentially -- there is a potential for 8,100 and it's unknown how much the school will generate. The vehicle access -- direct access -- lot access for a collector is prohibited and, again, there is approximately 50 direct access lots. Through traffic is encouraged. We would hope this would not happen. There would certainly be direct traffic conflicts. Street patterns -- the collector street requirements discourage continuation of a collector through an artery and it's going to happen without question. So, there would be definite impacts to the -- to the existing Kodiak from this. Again, just more -- more of the ACHD requirements, the traffic considerations, speed control, intersections, and pedestrians. I'm not going to go through these point by point, because I have already made statements related to its similar impacts -- potential impacts. This collector street, we feel as residents. would be costly for taxpayers and it would impact the homeowner. The lighted road -- obviously, the developer, if this were required, would probably have to suffer the cost of that. Kodiak and Cub Street would have impacts from the significant increase in traffic. There would be safety issues along the existing Kodiak, with a direct lot access and the increased traffic that this would generate and it impacts 50 homeowners' property values. The light on the state highway would be another impediment on Meridian Road. It would stop traffic on the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 17 of 86 state highway and it would create more issues with traffic flow. Now, I'm going to jump from the collector issue back to the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision. This proposed alternative that was proposed yesterday to ACHD as an alternate to access out of Shepherd's Creek and what we are proposing here -- this is the subdivision. This is the church property here. Currently, as proposed by the developer, this road goes straight out to Garibaldi, then, goes out and exits out. What we would propose is that on the second road, a direct access out, and, then, a direct road out to Miestra, which is the right-in and right-out off of Meridian Road or a direct access out to Victory to a light -- soon to be signalized intersection. ACHD did not approve this, but I still want to offer it up tonight as another alternative. It does provide an alternate route to a primary road. It can be used -- it would be able to be used soon when the light at Victory is up or Miestra, again, you could go right in or right out. Takes pressure off Bear Creek. It allows better emergency vehicle access and it places some of the burden on Shepherd's Creek for improving access. There would be minimal to no cost to taxpayers, whereas a collector would involve significant cost and impacts to the homeowner. And there could be residual lawsuits, issues with the proposed collector road. Prop 2 is on the ballot. I think all of you are aware of that. We are concerned about Prop 2, just as I'm sure the city and county and state governments are, but it's certainly something that's looming out there and it's something we are concerned with also. Newell-Lemaster: Well, I just want the Commission to know that Bear Creek isn't threatening lawsuits, it's just more of making sure that everybody is aware that Prop 2 is out there and we as taxpayers don't want to be paying lawsuits if roads like this are approved and homeowners suffer a loss. If Prop 2 is passed, then, they will have the opportunity to open up a lot of lawsuits for our city and county governments. McGordon: This is just some photos of the -- this proposed location. Miestra right here -- this is Miestra coming off Meridian Road going into Bellissima Strada. Over here is the church's access road and, then, the road from Shepherd's -- the alternate proposed road from Shepherd's Creek would come in here, tie into the church's access road, and, then, dump onto Miestra or it could go straight out Alfini. Alfini is shown here. The church road is shown here. Just a quick summary of the access and collector road issues. Want to make it clear that the Bear Creek residents do oppose the signalized collector street. It was not originally designed as part of Bear Creek development. It's now being proposed as an after-thought. Bear Creek roads are not designed to handle that amount of traffic or that potential amount of traffic, so it's certainly an issue. We do support also the alternate access that's recommended by ACHD at the meeting yesterday that was held. Other issues with traffic -- construction traffic. We do not want construction traffic going through the subdivision. provide -- our recommending to provide an alternate access for the construction traffic, not to go through Bear Creek. Fire and emergency vehicles, again, no direct access from a primary road. I think that's a critical point. The safety of our Bear Creek residents and children. Along one segment of the road where this goes out there is over 35 children just within about 12 houses on the other segments of the road. There is roughly 65 to 75 children. So, there is a lot of small children. So, I was very happy to hear Matt suggest that tot lot Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 18 of 86 would be put in, because it certainly would serve the large number of children that live on the two streets that stub off going into Shepherd's Creek. Rohm: Ma'am. you need to conclude here pretty quick. Your presentation has already exceeded the applicant's time and really this -- in fairness to both you need to -- McGordon: Okay. I'm going to-- Newton-Huckabay: Your presentation has almost been a half an hour. Rohm: And that's why I have allowed her to continue, but you need to -- McGordon: Okay. I'll go through the rest qUickly. Rohm: Thank you. McGordon: I'm -- these are proposed actions. Obviously, we oppose the collector road. We want to reduce the density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day. Provide direct access to a primary road. Require a separate construction access. And require a direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency. Density. The big issue. Bear Creek is low density. Shepherd's Creek is medium density. The original zoning of the church property was public-quasi public. Proposed density of Shepherd's Creek, 55 homes on 12 acres, approximately 4.6 homes per acre, versus the 2.6 of Bear Creek and, then, 2.5 of Bellissima Strada and others in the area. Transportation access is the key issue for us. The surrounding land use is a definite consideration with the density, the location of this, the intensity of the existing use, are definite factors in lowering the density of this development. We proposed that the city judiciously apply their own guidance, the intensity of the use, the underlying zoning, surrounding land use, the location of the property, and transportation issues. In consideration of this, guidance from the adjacent views, lower the land density, land use density, consistent with land use surrounding Shepherd's Creek. which is 2.6 homes per acre. Other issues we have are home values. The values of homes in Shepherd's Creek -- or, excuse me, in Bear Creek range from 350,000 all the way up to 900,000. The increased density we feel would lower -- would negatively impact the values of Bear Creek homes and to maintain our property value, we feel that the less density and -- would help in that -- in that manner. Actions. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Sear Creek. Reconfigure and add usable green space. Drainage is an issue. Bear Creek is generally lower in elevation than the adjacent property. We want to assure that the site and the drainage plans address containment within the development. We didn't see anything in the ACHD report. we didn't see anything in the Meridian Planning and Zoning report addressing drainage, so we would like to see something that addresses that. Again, actions -- recommend that we require a drainage pond that addresses containment and management of all the runoff within the development. Open space and parks. Shepherd's Creek has minimal usable, it's all pass-through, it's landscape medians, limited value. If that were reconfigured and all put together in one location, it would be much more functional and usable and add value to the development. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 19 of 86 Recommendations. Required the redesign of the open space. Locate the leftover spaces collectively. Just stated that. Provide amenities that are usable. A tot lot. Great idea. Bear Creek residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development. Requires CCRs for Shepherd's Creek that are consistent or equal to those established for Bear Creek. Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish a homeowners association or to join Bear Creek. There is no street tree plantings proposed within the entire development, only limited. If property values are to be maintained, then, at a minimum there should be street trees within the development. Recommendations require street trees and median plantings throughout the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision, but at a minimum require transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads, so it reflects the adjacent character and quality of our neighborhood. I'm at the end. We request that the Meridian Planning and Zoning give careful and informed consideration to the issues that we have raised tonight for the 243 people that have signed this petition. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Are there any questions of this person that gave this testimony? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Borup: Just a couple. I had several written down, but most of them have been answered as the presentation went on. But maybe just a clarification for my end that may affect the other. but several of your comments were there was concern there was no outlet to the primary road. I assume that your proposal for that was the access to Meridian Road that was on the south -- south side of this? That was your proposed answer to that? Okay. McGordon: The Miestra-Alfini Way outlet. Borup: Okay. The other may be a comment and that was on -- you were assuming that the 8,200 traffic volume on Kodiak. That would be one hundred percent of all the traffic from all seven subdivisions -- McGordon: That's correct. Borup: And that is, obviously, a very false assumption, that a hundred percent of all seven subdivisions would travel down Kodiak. I don't know what that answer would be, but, obviously, it's not that figure. You know, a traffic engineer would show that, that that would not happen at a build out. McGordon: We concur with that, but just showing potentially what the local area generates. Borup: But not down that street. McGordon: No, not down that street directly. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 20 of 86 Borup: And I didn't understand your comments on Proposition 2 on how that even affected anything here. McGordon: Well, yes, in the -- Borup: Other than that by denying this project they would be the ones that would have maybe grounds to sue. McGordon: Well, I think the concerns that were raised yesterday at the ACHD meeting were that if this collector street went through and it had impacts on the existing Kodiak, people whose property value along that -- Borup: Right. Proposition 2 had to do with eminent domain. McGordon: No. It also has a section on taking based on city and county governments, establishments of zoning and ordinances. Borup: Okay. McGordon: There is a copy of Prop 2 in the folder for you. Borup: Yeah. I read the section you had underlined. McGordon: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I mean that is a proposal on the ballot. It doesn't have any impact on that. I think it's just for illustrative purposes is why it's raised as testimony, but it is not the law in Idaho and the law as applied in other states don't relate to what this presentation is talking about, it relates to the property owner, who is the applicant, as Councilmember -- or as Commissioner Borup has stated, it would apply to the applicant, not necessarily to everyone else that might live along the street or anything else and that's how it's been applied in other states, but it isn't the law here, so it is just for illustrative purposes for the sake of the record. Borup: And that's what I had understood, too. Maybe just a clarification on the comment on open space. You talked a lot about redesigning here. Is there any usable open space in Bear Creek? I'm not aware of any tot lots or -- McGordon: No, there is no tot lots, but the Bear Creek developer gave the park. Borup: Right. That's the city park. McGordon: Right. Borup: Okay. And that's what I thought. There is no usable open space in Sear Creek at all. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 21 of 86 McGordon: The open space are the connecting pathways that go from the different blocks to the -- Borup: Right. But you spent a lot of time talking about usable space. McGordon: Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had. Rohm: I think as opposed to going down through the list of names that have signed up to speak, by all means, anybody that has something additional to say is welcome to and I think I will just take them one at a time if there is -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record you do need to go through the list. If the spokesperson has spoken for them, you can check that off and they -- but you do need to go through that for the purpose of the record. Rohm: Okay. I'll go through. Austin? Has been spoken for. Ann Croy? Been spoken for. Eleanor James. Been spoken for. Rodney Larkey. Been spoken for. Leslie Madsen? You may come forward, please. Madsen: My name is Leslie Madsen and I live at 465 Kodiak and I do confirm mainly what has already been said in issue with Bear Creek, but I would invite each of you to go into Bear Creek, if you haven't already, and drive around Kodiak and some of those very curvy streets. I have some real concerns as a homeowner, because I feel like there was some deception with my developer if, indeed, this becomes a collector street, which it was not originally designed for. And so I do support all of the arguments that have been given this evening. But I would invite you to come to Bear Creek and I would invite you to think about your own homes and where you are and if you're living on a quiet street and built your home there for that purpose, that you wonder how you would feel if that suddenly became a main connector. I don't think it has the characteristics that we need to have as a connector street, which has been supported by ACHD already. And so I just want you to know that as a homeowner we are very concerned about the change of complexion of our development if this does, indeed, take place. So, come and see us in Sear Creek. Rohm: Before you step away from the microphone I'd like to just offer a comment and all three of the developments surrounding this 12 acres all have stub streets into this 12 acres and I think that it should have been understood that that's what those stub streets were for, that there will be additional development and there will be additional traffic on the roads and we, as a planning and zoning commission, try to encourage interconnectivity between developments, as opposed to having each individual development have its own access to -- of the main thoroughfares. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 22 of 86 Madsen: And I am not opposed to any of the development of Shepherd -- Valley Shepherd or whatever it is. I understand that that was going to be developed. There are the stub streets. What I have a concern about is connecting Meridian Road with Stoddard, which is already an access road between Overland and Victory Road and as Matt has pointed out, I believe that the Ten Mile connector on the interstate is going to take away a lot of the traffic that comes along Overland, leaving those free for more access for the school traffic and so on that will be needed on Stoddard. So, when we get that interchange, which has been promised a long time ago, hopefully, that will take all the people that come from the northern Meridian area and travel Overland, that little leg of Overland. But, thank you, I just wanted to -- Borup: Ma'am, I -- a clarification question. Madsen: Yes. Borup: You said you felt that maybe your developer had deceived you? Could you elaborate on that? Madsen: Well, because when -- first of all, when we built our home, the ground behind us was going to be church property and -- Borup: No, but how does he have any control over that? Madsen: No, the deception is not so much in that, because it would have had to have been a very huge building to occupy all of that space and so the development I have no problem with. The deception is that if this now becomes a busy thoroughfare along Kodiak when it was a quiet residential road, it, to me, is a deception. Borup: How would it be a deception? Madsen: Well, it's unfair, then, let's say, for the city -- Borup: Oh, so you expected that the developer would have known four years ago that this was going to happen today? Madsen: No. I guess I -- if that was approved. Then, maybe it's not the developer's deception, I guess it's the city's deception if you approve one plan and, then, change the plan and I'm just asking that you consider very carefully that -- if you change that configuration of those streets to make it a collector street that does affect a lot of them. Rohm: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I know all the Commissioners are aware of this, but since the last speaker brought it up, while the matter is pending you can't go out there to the site and go view the streets and drive through the subdivision. The Idaho Supreme Court has Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 23 of 86 prohibited that type of action. So, just for you and for the other applicants to understand that while this matter is pending you can't do that. Borup: I have done that many times already, though. Nary: But as -- but for the purposes of making a decision for this project you aren't able to do that, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I'll quit as well. Okay. The next name on the list is Randy McGordon. You have been spoken for or would you like to speak? Okay. Shawna Mitztra? She's been spoken for. Chad Whipple. Joel Hammer. Would you like to come forward, please? Hammer: Commissioners, my name is Joel Hammer, I live at 327 West Cave Bear Court in the Bear Creek Subdivision. Just a few comments. I agree with what has been presented as far as from the homeowners association in relationship to the collector road. I, too, am against it and would not support that. I think the only point where I disagree with them is on the density as far as within the subdivision itself. I am not opposed to the density as far as it's being proposed by the developer. I think that a development with mixed densities in there, such as a Tuscany or other developments like that, creates a strong community environment, as well as providing opportunities for all to come and live within the confines of that development. I don't believe that the homes themselves are going to be a value hinderment to the Bear Creek Subdivision. Based on land prices, based on appreciation rates and so forth, I believe that the homes there will be -- again, as the developer stated, somewhere in the 300,000 range, entry level, as well as with the larger lots I think that you are going to see some large values within the homes. And so I do not believe that it's going to hurt my home value or the values of other Bear Creek residents within this development itself. Again, I believe that a mixed -- a mixed site within lots is healthy for an environment. I think it's healthy for a community. I think it allows different ranges of income and of other areas to be able to come into the development and. again, we are not talking substandard here, these are going to be nice homes and these are going to be homes that are going to have value within the community and are not going to be at the low end, they are still going to be a mid range to a high end home within this development. That's alii have to say. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'm curious. What do you do for a living? Hammer: What I do for a living is I develop. Moe: Thank you. Hammer: For a portion of that. I mean I also have other businesses along with that. Moe: Appreciate that very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 24 of 86 Rohm: Okay. Good question. Okay. Tim Graver. Been represented. Carolyn Seagle. She's been spoken for. And Carolyn Smith. Been spoken for. Did I miss anybody? I do have Ray Schild. Schild: I'm an attorney for the developer. I'll speak during rebuttal. Rohm: That's why I bypassed you earlier. I assumed that was the -- that is all the people that were on the list, but if there is anybody else that would like to come forward to speak to this matter, now is the time. Okay. Before we get to the rebuttal, we are going to take a short break. Thank you. About ten minutes. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and before we go any further I'd like the record to reflect that Commissioner Borup is in the attendance tonight and that's noted and -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Before we have rebuttal I'd like to ask staff one other question. I was curious in the earlier testimony it was made note that -- that the Bear Creek group supported the alternative access that ACHD had proposed. In this report there was an alternative that -- okay. Hood: Let me explain that a little bit. They originally supported an alternative access and I can show you on this -- again, two weeks ago they required the applicant to build the street over -- let's see. Where is Miestra. And connect with Miestra, which currently ends like somewhere in here. So, that would have been the fourth access point. The - applicant, as was mentioned, asked ACHD to reconsider that action and, in fact, yesterday they reversed or overturned their original action and did not require that. So, in effect, what you're looking at here is what ACHD approved. Their other change was that they extend this stub street over and cul-de-sac it onto this site. That's my understanding. I have not seen that in writing from ACHD, but that's the other change, I guess, that they made yesterday. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Well, to expand on that before we go to rebuttal, if, in fact, they extend that stub to the east and left the cul-de-sac there, is it not possible to tie that into Meridian Road at a later date? Hood: It would be. That is assuming that this -- a portion of this church redevelops in the future and there is some feasibility of that. I mean they have some -- a large portion Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 25 of 86 down here that they -- I don't know the church's master plan for the 20 acres they are retaining. There is some potential I see to do a similar thing and subdivide it again and potentially split some of this off. Something else that I think -- since we started talking about bad accesses is just a point to note is that the church does not even tie into the subdivision that's proposed here and people that are living here that may attend the church have to drive in their cars and drive through an adjacent subdivision just to get to church and to that end as well, if you look at the people exiting church, will have to drive through Strada Bellissima to get out to go anywhere and, in fact, they can't just use Miestra in the future, because that's supposed to be restricted to right-in, right-out. They have to drive through a residential subdivision to get out to the light at Victory. So, you have not even interconnectivity amongst the subdivision. And I'm sorry I didn't call that out earlier, but it's a good point by ACHD that, you know, you're not even providing that interconnectivity amongst your own lots. so -- it's something that -- to ponder. anyway, and to think about, too, which isn't called out in the staff report, but something that -- Rohm: Where is the church going to exit currently? Hood: Oh, let's go the other way. So, the church -- this is their driveway here. So, this is the one and only access point they have. They will come down and today you can turn out on Miestra and make a left or right turn. The approval for this access point given by ITD in 2004 or '5, I believe it was, with the approval of Strada Bellissima, was conditioned that this shall be restricted to right-in, right-out. Now, that hasn't happened as of today, but the permit granting for this access says right-in, right-out. So, that, in effect, turns everyone in this subdivision again, to have to go down Strada Bellissima, church patrons, in and out -- you know, they could come in still, I guess. You could still right-in if you're coming -- heading south, but that is the dominant movement today. Again, in the future it would be down all the way half mile to get a signalized intersection. Rohm: And there is no access off of Meridian Road into the-- Hood: Correct. No access. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we go to the rebuttal at this time -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I was just curious, what would be the point of the cul-de-sac -- I mean I know you're trying to build homes around it on the church property. Hood: I think the intent of that -- and, again, someone that was there may clarify, but if I understand correctly -- I mean it's either you have a stub and if it's not going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 26 of 86 extended, make it a turnaround, you know, so it's not forever just a stub hanging out there. I'm not quite sure why they didn't just make it a loop and chop off that whole thing. If they aren't having the street go out, I'm not quite sure. But that would be my guess. I don't -- Newton-Huckabay: Some effort to make it look finished. Hood: Exactly. That's what I would -- Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come back up, please. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska, representing the applicant. If I could start with Caleb's comments first while they are still fresh in my mind, because I didn't write them down as thoroughly as I did the testimony before. Start with the first thing of that stub street. He is correct, the very end of the -- of the recommendation there was a little confusion from ACHD about that. I talked to her afterwards and we are going to round that off right there, because it is a stub street that's only 90 feet long. We have done it in a few other places. Make it look permanent. There is no need for a turnaround if you're less than 150. So, there was a little confusion. Staff -- Lori Hartog, planning development director, has agreed to -- not officially in writing, but we have talked about just doing it that way and -- that's not working right. Rohm: I have got another one right here. Schultz: I have got one, too. Just to round the sidewalk -- extend the sidewalk to -- extend the right of way there that -- if something changes, which I don't see happening, but let's just say something changes that, you know, it could go through. It wouldn't change a thing, but for now it looks finished. And it is pedestrian and we could connect fire and emergency there. As far as church patrons driving around -- you know, I drive to church, it -- it's not very far at all. Pretty quick trip, actually. Not to go out on the main road is pretty convenient. And that's how -- I know how the church leaders feel about it, it's a lot better than their downtown location that people have to drive to. It could be convenient if anybody happens to live in the neighborhood or the surrounding neighborhoods for that. Back to the alternate access, just to clarify. Caleb is correct, at the initial ACHD hearing the commissioners were seeking a compromise and they didn't have enough information to really evaluate the fourth access. I mean we have three accesses for 55 lots. I showed them that there is about a 20 second jog in here that's different than that. You know, it doesn't add any appreciable drive time reduction. If anything, it does provide a little jog, which I think is beneficial. I know I live up in Bear Creek where I drive further than these people will and I find it very convenient where I live near Meridian Road. So, I don't see this as any great reduction. And once ACHD saw the numbers, they saw the facts a little bit better, they said, oh, yeah, you're right, we don't need that. Three accesses is plenty. In fact, these three accesses, based on Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 27 of 86 our traffic study, would handle 150 homes. Not that that would be politically advisable to propose that many, but, technically, it would. So, we are way under any warrants with those three accesses for the traffic. I'm going to dive into -- as quick as I can, but still to be as thorough as I can with the very thorough and professional presentation that was done by the homeowners association. I do appreciate them showing up. I'm not going to belabor the collector point anymore. I think everybody is unanimously opposed to that to be built now. Or, really, ever, in my opinion, but somebody could change their mind later. Like Joe Hammer said, these price ranges, based on his experience doing other developments, are going to be 300 plus, just like Kimberly said Bear Creek is. This is not going to be any different, the lots will be a little narrower, the architecture may be a little skinnier, a little bit deeper, a little hallow, but you still have the same square footage homes -- or close. You're not going to have the 6,000s like we have with South Bear Creek, but you're still going to have the same -- as much as you need. We do have pedestrian walkways. We do have lighted streets. Meets standards just like Bear Creek. The density is different, like I said, but we do believe it's a transitional density, it blends in perfectly, it does provide a mix. And when you look at the bigger section of Strada Bellissima, Elk Run, Bear Creek, it is all one big subdivision, really, interconnected. The density is about 2.6. With our addition they go to 2.7. We are not drastically changing the bigger neighborhood that we are coming into. It's a very slight slight increase of density. A distinct and separate entrance. We are kind of geographically limited to have a distinctive separate entrance. If we were close to a main road we would have one. With our three stub streets we think we are more than covered. We do -- like I said previously, we had -- the way Meridian planning and zoning ordinance calculates usable open space, we have six and a half percent. Bear Creek has three percent, if you exclude the city park, which was separate from the rests of them. Strada Bellissima has three percent. Elk Run has zero usable open space, because that was done back In the mid '90s when there was no ordinance. So, we exceed on the way it's calculated. Now, it may not look like much, but we are only 12 acres. We do exceed the requirements of anything in the neighborhood for open space. And it is -- it's usable. We are going to put a playground in there. We didn't originally. We will revise the landscape plan to add that before we go to City Council and make it more usable than it was before. There was a comment about a burden on Bear Creek. I see Bear Creek -- can you go back to an overall? Yeah. That works. I see Bear Creek residents driving out right now through Strada when I drive home a night. Not everybody is going to go this way, some people are going to -- we all share these public roads. We all -- they are built to standards that allow parking, they are plenty wide, you know, we have got to watch out for the kids. I mean if there is one house or 50 houses, we have got to be careful when we drive, obey the speed limit, but we all share these roads and we are not a burden on anyone subdivision, we are -- it's very well dispersed with our three stub streets. The petition -- you know, they only got -- they got less than half the homeowners. I do appreciate their -- their getting organized and I do appreciate her participation, but -- but -- I'll just skip right on passed that. The lot -- she says she liked lot size more than home value. Not everybody wants lot size more than home value. Everybody has a different -- we think we have some of each. We have lot size and we have some that are smaller lot size, but still a good home value. Drainage issues. This is about 20 feet higher than this. There is a drain that goes through the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 28 of 86 middle. We are going to put that underground. You know, I left working for Bear Creak when this was just getting started, Bear Creek Seven, and I think they didn't finish this property line too well, so that rear line -- there is a little low -- I think when the farmer was irrigating this in the meantime some of that drainage may have ponded back there. I'm not sure. I know when we come in we are going to look at that real closely to see what we can do to -- obviously, we are going to -- they are not going to farm it anymore, we are not going to be flood irrigating, but also to see what we can do to help the situation that we didn't create, but we will try to fix, if there is a problem there. That's just some of the comments I have heard at the neighborhood meeting, but this is an issue right along here. The elevationwise, it's 20 feet from up here to down here. There is a pretty big slope. CC&Rs. We are going to have some strong CC&Rs out. I don't believe it's a full requirement that we debate those. It's a private enforcement issue. We are striving to have a lot of the same builders that built in Bear Creek, maybe some different ones. At that price point we have got to do nice things, we have got to enforce the architecture and just not let anybody build anything they want and that's our goal. As far as joining, I don't see that happening right away. It could happen later after we get built and those homeowners could join their buddies across the fence if they wanted to, but that would be their choice after we get it up and built out. The alternate routes -- we have got Calderwood, Miestra, Alfini, Grisly, Kodiak, Christopher -- I think there is six or seven routes out to major arterials within a half mile. It's really exceptional if you look at it compared to some other areas of town. But we do have good alternate access, we do have good emergency access. As far as the traffic increase, it's a five percent increase in traffic, compared to what's already there today, with the 550 lots, going up to about 600. Again, I already commented on the density increase being 1/1oth of a percent. As far as notification of that ACHD hearing, they were well prepared for ACHD. They found out, they presented their point well. I don't think they lost anything by -- we didn't try to get anything by them, we were just trying to clarify a certain issue and I guess we forgot to notify them, but they showed up and were very effective in making their point known at ACHD. The fire and emergency access, we haven't had any specific recommendations from fire and emergency access. We have heard some vague concerns. We believe that this location here, if you look at its distance, is superior to some locations up in here, like where I live, but I still have great access. There is some areas over here, you get the line back in, they still have good access. I really don't see this as any major deficiency to emergency access. However, if we need to connect an additional emergency access back here we could. We have allowed for that. We haven't heard that recommendation yet, but we have allowed for it as it comes forward. We have -- we have added the tot lot. As far as street trees, if you want to plant -- to have detached sidewalk with street trees, it requires a 62 foot right of way these days. That's what ACHD went to. We don't have room, but we will be providing street trees in the yards, just like Bear Creek has. And we are not going to not -- it's shown on our landscape plan, but those are required with -- with the lots per the CC&Rs. As a developer we require at least two in the bigger lots, at least one in the smaller ones, in the shrubs and everything else. It makes that streetscape look good. You know, I could speak to Leslie Madsen's note on the deception issue. I know I worked for Greg Johnson on the original and nobody ever ever thought that this collector would come about. I remember having specific discussions about, heck, no, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 29 of 86 we are not going to have any access here, at City Council just a few years ago. So, it's really kind of come back full circle, so it was a real surprise for me when I took this on to see that it was back and it wasn't going away very easy. But I do appreciate staff's planning for the potential for a light there. That may be totally appropriate once you see what's going on over here. They are really access challenged on this side of the road, because they don't have any mid mile collector behind them and they don't have any stub streets. So, this might warrant a signal there. I think it's just -- that's fine. Put a signal there. ITD will let you. Just don't connect it to Bear Creek and I think that's the main concern. I do appreciate, you know, the amount that responded, 14 different people said what they wanted and they were very thorough. I do believe we have a good mix. The mix is good. The R-8 is not an adverse zoning. It could have been if we would have crammed 66 lots in there, which would be the maximum I could have got with an R-8. We went with a compromise. This does reflect a compromise, I think, in the initial design. I don't like to get up and jam as many as I can and try to negotiate at the podium, because that could go south on you real quick if you try that route, although some guys might try it. But we have put the thought into it and hope that you will support it as proposed, with the accesses as proposed, and move us forward to City Council with your recommendation, with the respectful, you know, recommendation for R-8, even though staff did recommend an R-4, we believe with the lot -- with the size of lots we are dealing with, an R-4 does allow a 64 foot wide lot, it just needs to be deeper. We don't have the luxury of depth on this site, so 4.5 to the acre is just very very slightly over the four that's allowed with R-4. So, I think we are really close and I hope that works for you and we can move forward with your recommendation. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: It just came to me -- it was on your comments concerning the R-8 and R-4. Has there been any preliminary decisions on square footage sizes that would be in your CC&Rs? Schultz: Honestly, no. If I could speculate as to what those would be, though, I -- on those 50-foot lots what we have been seeing in other areas, the minimum you get down to is 1,400, but you're seeing more 1,600, 1,800, up to 24 hundred, 25, on the 50 foot lots. The single story, if -- every once in awhile you get somebody -- like I have got a gentleman -- my grandmother, she just wanted a 1,400 square foot home. That was plenty for her. And you will find people like that -- Borup: And that's what I was wondering, the minimum on the R-4 is 1,400. Schultz: And there is no minimum on R-8, is that what you're saying? We could live with that 1,400 minimum that is in the R-4, if that's what you're asking. We could say yes to that, if that could be part of your recommendation. We haven't -- we could use Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 30 of 86 that as a guideline for our decision to move forward and that's not going to be a hindrance to us. Borup: Okay. I just wanted your input on that. Schultz: Thanks. Rohm: Thank you. That's a lot to digest. And I want to thank each of you for a very well orchestrated presentation and a lot of good thoughts went into that. Let's do a little poll here. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts on this before we -- Zaremba: I have a whole range of thoughts. Rohm: I'll bet you do. Zaremba: And I do appreciate all of the presentations that have been made. They have been very thorough and informative. I have not yet been convinced, though, that staff is wrong. I feel that staff is absolutely correct. One of the things that was mentioned is that we don't want to turn South Meridian Road into another North Eagle Road. The difficulty with that is the traffic that is on Eagle Road is not necessarily Meridian city traffic. A lot of it is from our surrounding communities accessing the interstate. The same thing will be happening with this lower section of Meridian Road" As Kuna grows and even as more of Meridian grows, the impact when the sewer finally goes through and development really takes off down there -- we haven't seen anything yet, when development really happens down here, this section of Meridian Road is going to look like Eagle Road looks now from the traffic. What we have learned from Eagle Road is that having access in odd places doesn't work for the traffic flow. It is no surprise that the City of Meridian has a development along the interstate and along state highways ordinance that was adopted sometime ago. When the CUP for this property came in earlier, they provided the collector road on it. I don't believe the City of Meridian told them they had to, they offered it. We had some discussion about it and I don't feel at this point it's been phrased that the planning and zoning staff or the Commission has created this collector road out of nowhere. It has always been on the plan back when we talked about annexing we talked that there would be a collector road there. When the applicant -- or at least the church applicant brought their CUP forward to build the church building, it had the collector road on their drawing. There wasn't any question that it was going to be there. It provided two directions of access for the church. Now, what the collector does -- and there seems to be an assumption that all the collector is going to do is allow traffic in. It will also allow traffic out and I believe the people that already live in this area will use it. as well as anybody that needs to access this new subdivision, if it's approved. It will be usable. What is not being emphasized -- and we haven't seen it on Eagle Road yet, but the Eagle Road corridor plan is medians down the middle of Eagle Road, preventing left turns everywhere except the half mile. That will eventually happen on Meridian Road. There is not going to be full access to any road, other than at the half mile. We have talked about focusing these people on a road that comes out of the quarter mile. That's not going to be effective ten or fifteen Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 31 of 86 years from now, because that will be a right-in, right-out only, as will the other road a little farther north. These will be right-in, right-out. Anything here or down here will be right-in, right-out. The only way for development along the state highway to have access is at the half mile point or at the section line roads, which is already there. And I'm not sure if people are visualizing what impact that is going to have and, unfortunately, ITD has delayed the Eagle corridor -- actual construction of it. They have all the plans, but they have put off the construction of it, because I think it would be helpful to actually have that and see how it operates, because that same situation will apply here. I still feel it's necessary to have the collector there. I'm not as convinced that people will go around the circuitous two or three turns to make Kodiak part of that collector. Collectors sometimes are very short. They get passed the church and I'm not sure traffic will continue to go the circuitous route to go farther, but it does function in two directions in this area and to give it up I think sometime in the not too distant future, will seriously impede traffic flow not only for the current developments, but for future developments there. So, I'm not opposed to housing mix. I think that's a good idea. We have had testimony on previous hearings when there was an existing subdivision of a certain density and a new subdivision was going to go in next to it with maybe a little higher mix of densities and the testimony has been that it would ruin property values. We have had enough of those now that some of them are actually built and operating and gone through resale market and they have not damaged the property values around. As a matter of fact, they have made the communities very attractive. As the person who admitting to being in the development community said, having a mix of housing in a neighborhood allows different types of people to be in the neighborhood. So, I don't have a problem with the size and shape of the proposal. I do have a problem with losing the collector access and I don't feel this is a surprise that P&Z is putting on this applicant, it's been the subject all along. It has always been there. It's the applicant who has said, uh, we don't want to do it. And that part of it I think is wrong. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I guess my comments would be addressed to two areas, one on the collector road and the other on the subdivision itself. I'm -- I'm not seeing the necessity of a collector road today. I think there is enough -- obviously, there is a lot in testimony, but I'm not worried about today, I mean we are supposed to be -- one of the things we are supposed to be -- I mean this is a planning -- that's in our name, planning commission, and I have heard too many times over the last decade about what were you thinking about -- when it wasn't us -- but, you know, what was the city thinking about ten years ago or 20 years ago to let something like that happen_ That's -- and you can't always -- you can't always look to the future and know what's going to happen. But I think we have got enough experience on Eagle Road, being probably the experience, on what is going to happen and my concern is not today and whether it needs it today, but what's going to be needed 20 years from now. Twenty years from now I may not be riding on this -- driving down this street, but I have children and grandchildren that will want to. So, I would be -- and I don't know how this is going to be worked out and I do not feel it needs to be built today, but the other alternative could be some type of preservation of right of the way, whether it's in a deeded -- a deeded common lot or Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 32 of 86 whatever and I -- that would need to be worked out by someone that knows a lot more about it, but that's a proposal that I would be in favor of, but I'm not in favor of eliminating that possibility for all time. Comments on the subdivision -- and I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, our past experience over the last decade has not shown -- I don't think anyone can point out a single situation where property values decreased by a different density subdivision going in. It just -- it has not happened. If someone could show that, I would certainly be open to looking at that data, but I don't believe it exists. Lot size variety, there is some benefit to having some variety. My first impression was I would have liked to have seen it all complying with the R-4, but there is a variety -- I mean there is a number of lot sizes there. I think the transition is good. I also look at this as an overall community -- you know, as far as the tie in, it's not a lot different than if this subdivision -- if these 12 acres would have been part of the original Bear Creek, you know, it would have all been -- had those stub streets tying in and everything. I would be in favor of -- if we leave the lot sizes as they are, I think a good compromise would be a 1,400 square foot minimum. That is the minimum size for an R-4 zone. I know there are homes in Bear Creek down as small as 1,500 feet and more than likely that will be the minimum size that's going in here anyway, because I think Bear Creek had a 1,400 minimum also. That's the end of my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have got a question. Dave -- so the collector was on the annexation application with the church? Is that what you were -- Zaremba: Annexation applications don't actually have them, it was in the CUP that came -- earlier this year -- Newton-Huckabay: I believe it all comes together, the annexation and -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the annexation actually was approved in 2000 and the Conditional Use Permit for the church was approved just this -- Newton-Huckabay: Just this last year. Hood: Yeah. This last spring or-- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: -- late winter. Zaremba: Earlier this year. Newton-Huckabay: And it had the collector on it then? Hood: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 33 of 86 Borup: At the same location as -- Hood: Generally the same location, yes. It's never been fully said it needs to be right exactly at this location, but there was a roadway shown on that site plan, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Was that -- and you're saying it was disputed, then, by-- Zaremba: No. It has never been disputed as far as I know. It was just -- Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember that either. Zaremba: -- offered by them in their CUP and we have always assumed it would be there. Borup: Well, I think the other thing -- is my recollection there -- they did not include it, but they did a concept plan for the whole site and was showing some residential use back there. There was talk whether it be kind of a retirement center with -- with patio homes or -- but there were some -- some multi -- multi-family and detached housing, if I remember right. But it was just a conceptual plan, it wasn't part of the actual application I don't believe. Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember any patio homes. Borup: And this was way back in -- I think at the annexation time. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. With the patio homes. Borup: Yeah. I mean it was small lots -- real small lots and, then, some multi-family type of dwellings also. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I wasn't on the committee-- Borup: It was not part of the approval, it was just a conceptual plan that they were -- that they presented at the meeting. Zaremba: But my recollection on that was that the church would retain ownership and the purpose of it was, essentially, for senior church members. It was not sold to a separate entity. Borup: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so it was kind of like a retirement community type -- Borup: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 34 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's -- this is a tough situation. I don't -- I still have some thinking to do on this. I don't want to have anymore comments at this time by me. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Start coming this way next time, okay? All the comments are taken care of. Quite frankly, when I first started reviewing this project and, number one, in regard to the collector, when it was noted that it was a disputed roadway, I, too, remember that, basically, when the church came in that road was there. I never anticipated there was any dispute to it, I anticipated that that road would go in. So, therefore, I was a little bit surprised there. In regard to the -- the R-4 on the Camp Plan and whatnot, you know, everywhere it's noted as to be the R-4 there. I do believe the applicant has done some decent transition in those lots next to the Bear Creek area that will take care of, you know, my concerns in regards to it going to an R-8 and I do agree with Commissioner Borup if, in fact, we go that route it would probably be a good idea to have the 1,400 square foot minimum on that -- on that house size noted in that. A couple comments -- you know, I have been a little bit surprised for the simple fact I, too, think that the collector road, quite frankly, would be very beneficial to the Bear Creek, for the simple fact is that I ride Overland Road every morning and I am the one that's way backed up onto Linder Road waiting for everybody from Bear Creek to get out and everywhere else and traffic needs to disperse. I am concerned as far as Kodiak, how it does wind around. I'm going to anticipate that you're not going to see as much traffic -- I. too. agree with Commissioner Zaremba that I don't think once Overland Road is widened you're going to see more traffic taken through that route as well and, therefore, I don't see that you're going to see this collector being used as much as everyone may think. I am quite surprised that ACHD doesn't want to see this roadway go through and, actually, I'm looking forward to reading that report, quite frankly. But I guess that's about alii have say to say right now. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. I have a question for legal counsel. In reference to the CUP that was originally granted that shows the collector road on it. even though there wasn't specific right of way dedicated at that point in time, is there a requirement that if, in fact, this new subdivision is stubbed to the remaining property that the church would have to take it the balance of the way to Meridian Road via their CUP? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd have to look at the conditions, but I would guess that they probably don't address that. They may have had that on their concept plan as some potential conceptual future use, but without seeing the actual approval and the findings, I'm going to guess it probably wasn't required at the time. I think it may have been a discussion point, but, remember, that this is an amendment to an existing development agreement. So, if it's within the purview of the Commission to grant approval based on the conditions of whether it's a stub street, whether it's a dedicated -- it's a dedicated lot, whether it's the cul-de-sac that's proposed, whether it's emergency access, whatever those conditions, this Commission feels is appropriate, if your desire is to grant approval, is all within your discretion to recommend to the City Council. If you -- as some of you have stated, you don't see the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 35 of 86 necessity to build out that street today, but to just preserve that right of way ability in the future through some sort of dedicated common lot or some other form, you can do that. If the applicant doesn't wish to do that, then, they don't -- then, they don't necessarily have to agree to that amendment and they don't have to agree to amend the development agreement to allow for this. There is no entitlement currently to build this subdivision as proposed without that amendment to the development agreement. But there isn't anything that I can think of that was probably requiring that if -- if an application for residential property was going to be on this parcel in the rear part that they would, then, be required to construct a roadway. You would have to make that a condition of this development agreement and those recommendations would, then, go forward to the City Council for their final decision. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to add onto what Mr. Nary has talked about, a little help with the CUP that was approved last year. The reason that that wasn't dedicated at that time is it would take a subdivision to dedicate the roadway or you are, in fact, splitting property by having a road bisect the southern part from the northern part. So, in that staff report it talks about when this back piece develops it all needs to come in as a subdivision so we can get the road dedicated to the public, so -- and, in effect, what it did was say we realize you aren't platting today, but you're going to have to, because the collector roadway is going to bisect your property and that's how you split property is you do a subdivision and build streets and so that's, again, kind of how that evolved. And there is some analysis in the staff report that's actually in this staff report that I copied and pasted about just that, you know, the collector roadway is here, to get the collector roadway is you plat it, therefore, when you plat this the church gets platted, too, and you get the road. So, that's just to kind of finish up now what Mr. Nary said also about the develop agreement, you know, that's just kind of some history for you, too, because I think that's where your questions originated from, Commissioner Rohm, was how come is there a condition in the CUP for the church for this roadway and not explicitly, but that's implied with the preliminary plat, because that's the road that they were showing there. The only way to dedicate right of way, again, is with a plat. Borup: And, Caleb, the site -- the site design that was submitted and approved with that CU did show access at that location. Hood: Approximately. I didn't compare the CU site plan to-- Borup: But it was up at the north end of the property. Hood: Yes. Generally in the same location. Yes. Zaremba: And I remember a discussion was what do you do with the little piece that's north of the road, how is it going to be landscaped and the discussion, essentially, was, well, when they come in with a plat, then, we need to talk about the landscape plan. But I don't remember any doubt that that road was going to be there. We did discuss it at length. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 36 of 86 Rohm: Well, it seems to me -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have -- Rohm: Oh, you're ready. Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I was curious, the Kodiak has always been -- at the half mile would have been predominately on the half mile when Bear Creek was built and did we not consider -- I mean the city, I believe, in defense of everything the homeowners have said, considered that they might want a collector there some day when we were putting that development together. So, I do think that the homeowners have a very valid argument from my standpoint there. I was curious when -- was it Sadie Creek and Kohl's -- was Sadie Creek south of where they are putting the Kohl's on Eagle? What's that called? Sadie Creek? Zaremba: Eagle and Ustick. Nary: Sadie Creek. Bienville. Newton-Huckabay: Bienville. Okay. We had recommended full access collector type roadways at the quarter mile because of missing the boat, so to speak. What was the resolution on that? I don't know what the City Council's vote was on that. Zaremba: Caleb probably could answer that better, but my recollection is they did not take our recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was thinking. Hood: They did allow just -- ITD's permit board and chief engineer over there, boy, just maybe in the last week or two weeks ago approved the one access at 880 feet south of Ustick Road to Eagle Road, shared by Bienville and Sadie Creek. I don't remember that part of it. Nary: Mr. Chairman -- Hood: Okay. I'm sorry. Nary: Go ahead. Hood: Temporary full and, then, it will be restricted to right-out in the future. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that was the City Council's recommendation was a full access at 880 feet to be full access until the access at Ustick Road came, but it was a shared access at 880 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 37 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: So, it was only temporary, though. Nary: Temporary full. Newton-Huckabay: Temporary full. Nary: It will become right-in, right-out -- Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out. Nary: -- when there is access to Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we have -- then, are seeking some precedence that we are not putting full permanent accesses at quarter miles or in that vicinity and -- fair enough. Was that what-- Nary: What was your question? I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: During the conversation on that I had kind of thought that we might consider putting -- you know, keeping -- endorsing a full access at the quarter mile, rather than the half mile, in some situations, but based on City Council and ITDs actions, that is not the case. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, that is correct, that's not what the Council recommended and they had this similar discussion in regards to this roadway at the corner where the Walgreen's is supposed to go and the same issue about whether full access would be allowed. But, again, it was too close to the corner for ITD to support an intersection -- or for a light and that was where the discussion wasn't even at that -- at that project of the light being at the half mile at this point. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. On the -- overall, I don't have a real big problem with the lot transition, because I think they transitioned it pretty well, but I do -- and I am concerned about the subdivision transition. I think developers, particularly because they don't have a direct access, that -- you know, monumental access, whatever you want to call it, needs to go to extra efforts to make your development blend in with the Strada Bellissima and the Bear Creek, so they do look like a contiguous -- or as close as they can. I mean I understand if you can't do street trees, but I do think that -- that some, you know, extra ordinary effort should be taken there to at least blend in with and support, so that it looks more like a seamless development, rather than that and I mean I happen to live in a subdivision where they did not transition between subdivisions well and it is -- It's obvious and I don't think it would be too difficult to accomplish that. With that said, I remember the conversations somewhat on the collector and the church, but I, unfortunately, don't remember exactly how I felt about it at the time. But I would wonder if there is -- there has got to be a compromise here, if it's even a possibility -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 38 of 86 because we didn't take advantage of the -- making the Kodiak area a proper collector when Bear Creek was built, is there some kind of compromise at an access into Shepherd's Creek that starts with some kind of calming -- you know, substantial calming -- traffic calming capability, whether I -- I am not a traffic engineer, I don't know what all those options are, but -- a 90 degree turn. Zaremba: Three of them. Newton-Huckabay: But I guess that would be my only thought is to maybe go to one more effort to make that less appealing, if the collector does go through, to zipping through there. And with that said that's my only notes. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. We have heard from the balance of the Commissioners and I'd like to just throw out my two cents worth here. It appears to me that there is very little support for the collector road at this time, but I think that the city has done a very good job of setting the stage for future and I think that we would be remiss if we did not take this opportunity to at least provide for that down the road. I'm not sure that the collector road being installed at -- at the same time this subdivision is necessary, but if we don't take the steps to make sure that that's available down the road, then, we have missed a very good opportunity and it seems to me from Mr. Nary's comments that if, in fact, we were to make an amendment to the development agreement that currently exists as part of our recommendation, that would include the verbiage that would make that collector available to the public at some point down the road when it becomes necessary, while at the same time not doing it at this time when the subdivision is put in, seems to respond to all of you that have spent your evening with us and at the same time take care of the needs of the city into the future and that seems to be kind of a balance between both sides and it's -- that's what I would support. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the functional difficulties with going that direction is that ACHD does not build collector roads, the developers build corrector roads. ACHD does not fund them, they don't impact fee them. Essentially, collector roads are developer driven. The only way to accomplish that would be for the developer to trust or bond for the future building of the roadway, as well as putting the right of way or -- not a right of way, but putting on an easement in a separate common lot, but they would also have to bond for the building of the road and just let that money sit there until the road was built. It would make more sense while they are building their other roads, for them to go ahead and build it. ACHD isn't going to build it. They don't build collectors. Rohm: The devil is in the detail, isn't it? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 39 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: Can I recommend that we maybe wind up with getting a feel for what each of the Commissioners is recommending and, then, see if we have something to make a recommendation. Rohm: We could sure -- we could sure do that. Let's start with you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Without coming to some agreement on transition into Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima, making some agreement on going the extra effort to do everything we could -- if the collector had to be -- had to go in at this time, is making a substantial effort for some type of calming effort, I would be voting against recommending approval tonight. Rohm: Wow. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I do not like to send things like this onto City Council when there is so many questions of -- I don't feel comfortable with my decision. Am I being clear? Rohm: Yeah. No, that's why you're here. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: At the present time I would be in favor of supporting staff's recommendation for the collector road as it is at the present time and I would also agree to the R-8, because I do believe the transition is there. So, that would be opposing not -- staff's recommendation to go to R-4. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Maybe a question for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay first. And that was on your understanding of what you were talking about, the transition. You're concerned about the traffic calming; is that the main concern? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I will be honest with you, I -- I can't make a definitive one way or another on the -- how I really strongly feel about the collector. I just -- that is not very comfortable to me. Borup: I understand. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: But I'm talking about transition from Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima into Shepherd's Creek -- I keep wanting to call it Sadie Creek. Into Shepherd's Creek. Having it look like it belonged there. A seamless -- a more seamless transition than just -- because when you go from a subdivision that has street trees and detached sidewalks, into a subdivision that has the curb and gutter, et cetera, it is an obvious transition and I would just like to see them go to some efforts to mitigate that, so that it does look more -- Borup: Do we know that it does have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 40 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: That's what I understood. Borup: Do we have separated sidewalk at the stub streets? Can we just maybe clarify that one thing? Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open. Rohm: The Public Hearing is still open. Borup: Because I know only about half of Bear Creek has the divided -- the separated sidewalk_ Schultz: Exactly. I believe this portion of Bear Creek does. I have been paying attention, but I believe Strada Bellissima does. I know this portion of Bear Creek does not. I know everything around the park had detached. I know this has some detached. Everything up in here did not have detached. I'll just respond to that one question, but-- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Borup: They could do that transition. It would decrease the lot size right there, you didn't have a concern with that, but they could do a transition at that point. At least on the ones that -- I mean it's not going to make sense to do -- to do a separated sidewalk if the one it's tying into doesn't have it. You're saying make them both compatible. Newton-Huckabay: Right. I get the luxury of not having to design it, I just get the luxury of getting to pass judgment on it, so -- again, having not been out there on Bear -- Bear Track or Cub or Kodiak in quite -- you know, in -- probably in the last few months at least, I don't recall exactly -- particularly the pictures that publiC testimony brought forth. I think that's a pretty valid concern that -- to look and see what's possible. I'm not saying that we -- that we solve and design that tonight, I'm saying I would be more comfortable if we would have some agreement that that would take place, as in the recommendation of City Council. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: But I would also say this wouldn't be the first time that I would be voting in opposition to the rest of the Commission on recommendations either. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I don't have any concerns -- real concerns with the subdivision. I would be in favor of it as presented, other than adding the 1,400 foot -- square foot minimum. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 41 of 86 -- I think that would make it more compatible with Bear Creek. I am -- I'm undecided on the collector. I think it's very necessary -- I'm not undecided in the long term, I think -- I would be in favor of some type of preservation, if it's legally possible. If there is no way to do that, then, I would say now. If there is a way to legally handle it that it could be preserved for future, then, that would be my first choice. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I think a number of suggestions have been made. I would be able to support leaving the zoning as the R-8 that it is, with the requirement that the minimum house size be 1,400 square feet. I feel the collector is important and the only way I can see to do that is to have it built with the subdivision, but I would also agree that it's not a bad idea to have some kind of traffic calming at the intersection of Alaska and Kodiak. There is a couple of those intersections, but the intersection that would be within this subdivision, whether it's a traffic circle or an island or a little bit of a chicane or bulb out or something, 1-- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I like traffic circles. Zaremba: Okay. The only difficulty with that is they take up a little bit more space and the developer might lose a lot or two to do that, but -- Newton-Huckabay: But they are fun. Borup: See, my feeling is a 90 degree turn is the best traffic calming you can have. More so than a chicane would do. Zaremba: Well, that was my original feeling, that with the three 90 degree turns that you have, to continue on Kodiak, you have to make three 90 degree turns. That seemed to me to be satisfactory, but I could listen to an additional traffic calming, if that was the thought. That being said, I, actually, would like to see that drawing in that form before we forward it to the City Council, so my feeling would be to give the developer some instruction that pretty well parallels what staff has already said, but to see it in an actual drawing before we pass it onto City Council. Borup: To see what specifically? Zaremba: The roadway. Borup: Oh, the collector? Zaremba: Yeah. The collector. To actually have it imprint in a drawing. Schultz: Is the Public Hearing still open? Zaremba: With the alignment decided. So, the question to you is that possible? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 42 of 86 Schultz: We have an alignment that's designated here, if the Council so decides that that is important to put in now, then, that would be the decision. I'm not sure ACHD would take it, but that would be their decision. Like you said, there is calming -- some measure of calming. I think anything -- a traffic circle or the other things you said are maybe a good idea, maybe a bulb out or something, but a traffic circle would be overkill in this area, but we have an alignment designated that the church is -- has accounted for. Do they want to build it, do we want to build it -- we don't think it's necessary, but it could be a recommendation that we build it, it could be a recommendation that we reserve the right of way. And we would -- we would take that forward to Council and talk to them about that and say, yes, we can or here is why we shouldn't, but there is -- you can see there is room for it. There is no structures in the way for that. There is a big tree I think right in that area, but other than that, that's the only thing in that area. So, I don't think it's necessary for us to pencil out some different alternatives in that area when we have a straight through alignment. Our residential subdivision has buffering here, no on-street housing, so we wouldn't have to revise anything if that were called a collector. So, we have accounted for both options listed as design, just so we wouldn't have to some day redesign it at this point, so that's what I'm standing up to avoid some redesign when we have already accounted for it, hopefully, so that's all. Zaremba: If we were to do that I would want the word disputed to be removed. Schultz: You know what, it's interesting that Anna and I laughed at each other when we -- and Mr. Nary was there. We were in a group meeting -- that we talked about -- Anna suggested it. She says why don't we just call it disputed. I said great idea, because, you know, we are friends, but we are in respectful disagreement and that's just where we are at. So, we could remove disputed off of there. But it is a point of concern that no body's recommending -- except staff and this body, which is important, but ACHD isn't, the homeowners aren't. Not to say in 30 years it might be a good idea, but, hopefully, we can just move forward tonight with your recommendation and Council will have to -- they have never seen this and they will have to, you know, take everything into account and make the final call. But, hopefully, that was the recommendation. Like I said, it won't change the layout, it doesn't change the design at all in terms of what works and what doesn't, whether that's there or not, so -- Borup: And how about transition on this street, on doing a separated sidewalk, just on this -- just the depth of that lot. Now, you have got to -- you have got a common area here it looks like. Schultz: Yeah. We have extended that common area that Bear Creek started, so that will be a continuation. Borup: So, these sidewalks are already align to each other? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 43 of 86 Schultz: I believe -- I don't know if our survey exactly picks up whether that was detached or not, but there is a 20 foot landscape buffer that Bear Creek put in that we are going to extend at that same location and -- Borup: Okay. Schultz: -- the sidewalk could be detached in that area real easily on that location no problem. Borup: So, you're tying in the landscaping to give a continuous design there? Schultz: Exactly. Yeah. It will be a continuation of what was started. Borup: Is that kind of what you were thinking? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't want to see -- I don't want one sidewalk to stop and four foot over another sidewalk starts. Schultz: No. It blends in. That's always been our intent to match this in as best we can architecturally, tree-wise -- we don't have enough room in some locations for the detached, other locations we do. So, as we look at that we go to our final design. We can add those in, no problem. Where there is room -- the main north-south streets, we just don't have the -- like Mr. Borup said, the lots would get smaller or they'd have less yard. We would have more for the detached, but you give up something. So, we will final design -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But I -- Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Just so that I'm clear on what you're saying here, you will match the sidewalks at all of the transitions to all of the subdivisions around you. Schultz: We can do it here, we can have detached. And we can do it here and detached and kind of probably come back in right about right there and, then, right here we could do it detached. And up here it's attached right now. Newton-Huckabay: But it's attached on -- Schultz: Bear Creek. On Cub -- or Bear Creek. This is all attached, isn't it? Newton-Huckabay: Right. Schultz: It's all attached. Borup: So, it would just be the two -- it would just be the two. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 44 of 86 Schultz: And we have full landscaping on both sides of this road. I mean there is landscaping here and landscaping there. I mean there is a good buffer. Landscape, tree, shrubs, grass, to help with that transition. Moe: Would something to the effect of landscaping to be designed to similar standards as the existing stub street? That's where you're trying to start a stub street. Newton-Huckabay: And the sidewalk. Borup: It's the stub street. Moe: Well, I'm just writing some things down here. Landscaping and walks. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Last and possibly least, my -- I think where I come down on this is I'm in favor of the development. I'm in favor of the 1,400 square foot minimum house. I'm in favor of preserving a right of way, but -- and I don't know how it should be worded, but I don't necessarily think that the collector needs to be built at this time, but it needs to be preserved and I think that kind of falls with the balance of the public out there and if Mr. Nary had the -- could give us the verbiage, that's the way I would recommend that motion be made to forward onto City Council, but I'm in favor of the project as a whole. So, there you have it. I think that we have discussed this pretty thoroughly and at this point in time I'd like to get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP 06-040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we want to discuss -- well, I guess we have got two choices. Someone can make a motion and see how it -- how it votes or we can discuss some of the issues where we have got varying opinions. And it sounds to me like we have got varying opinions on the collector road and, then, the transition would be the only other thing. Well, I don't know if we have varying opinions on the transition. Moe: I think that's well taken there. My concern on the collector road -- you know, we are trying to do something -- you know, have the developer bond it or whatever -- I'll let legal maybe answer this, but my biggest concern is is that -- I mean we can anticipate Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 45 of 86 the cost of down the road or -- my concern is if you try and bond for it now and the road gets put in in say ten years from now, who is paying the difference at that point or are they going to anticipate the bond is going to pick that up and take care of it at that point? Am I making any sense here? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Moe: That's why, you know, I'm in favor of anticipating that road to go in now, because I'm concerned -- I don't know how you're going to be able to get it done later, because Commissioner Zaremba has already made the statement that it is the developer's responsibility to put this in, so I don't know how you can get him to do it down the road. Once all those lots are sold and he's pretty much squared away and that road is not in, I'm not sure how you are able to get it done at that point. Zaremba: Well -- and I would add that the cheapest time to do it would be now. If the bond's more for it than it would cost him to do it, because if he's already got the equipment out there doing the other mile or so of road that's involved in the subdivision, you have the same equipment and materials, build the road while they are there. That's to me the cheapest possible way to do it. Moe: I agree a hundred percent. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we make the motion, leaving staff's recommendation for the collector road as is, Commissioners vote their -- vote their opinion based on that. We make changes on the items that we agree on, such as the transition and the R-4 -- or leaving it to R-8 I think was the general consensus, with a 1,400 square foot minimum. Rohm: I think you're well on your way of making a motion. Borup: The other concern I still have is when the conditional use was approved for the church and it's showing access there, how were they able to build with not complying with that? I mean apparently -- obviously, the plan changed. Newton-Huckabay: Well, let's ponder that another time. Borup: Well, no, that's part of -- that's what we are talking about changing. And we are talking about changing the development agreement right now. That's what this is all about. Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's why I'm recommending that we leave -- regarding the collector street at staff's recommend and -- Borup: So, is this -- but is that whole cost on the back of this developer or is that shared with -- with the other development? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 46 of 86 Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I may be able to help out a little bit in that. Although the church was the sole applicant on their CUP for their church, they I don't think ever intended to actually construct that roadway. It was primarily -- although they were showing an access northerly to it on their plan, the road was to be constructed by others, assuming they sell that back -- whatever. I didn't know that they had decided on 12 acres at the time, but sell that off and that developer or some other party would build this road there. Borup: Right. That's -- and I think in the site design they had to move the building further to the south to leave room for that. There was some discussion on that. Okay. Zaremba: I think the discussion about moving the church farther south was whether or not you had to have a build-able lot on the north side of the road and to do that you -- the road will fit and move the church a little bit and I think we left that up for when they came in with a plat. Borup: From what I heard, it sounds like we had two Commissioners in favor of preservation and three that wanted to build it now. Does that sound -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, just maybe if I -- so I can be clear of what -- what you may end up with, part of your concern or discussion and the testimony that you heard is the connection of that property now to Meridian Road. ACHD has one opinion about that. We don't have any ITD opinion about that today, other than that's the logical point, based on their current policy, as to where the intersection would be. The concern, of course, of the testimony you have heard from the adjacent properties is the connection of that roadway today and I think you have addressed that a little bit in your discussion. Is your desire to connect that roadway today, we do not have enough information to do that, or is your desire to construct the roadway short of that intersection, because at the point that an intersection is going to be constructed there, that may not be the exact point for it. So, if you want the roadway to be able to be connected to a future intersection, it may not have to go to Meridian Road today. They can construct it like any other stub street would go to -- to the intersection enough to connect it. because, again, it has to line up with the street across and the street across isn't constructed today. The intersection would have to be constructed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, signalization and all of that five, ten years from now, I don't know what the standards would be. It may not make much sense to try to connect that today, but it does make sense, from what you're saying, that a majority of the roadway be constructed today. And, again, I don't know if that was your desire, but I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this development agreement if you wanted to connect to Meridian Road today, we haven't had any information from ITD if they are even -- well, other than they are saying -- I mean they are saying the logical point again, but they are not saying -- Zaremba: There is an August 31 st letter that says ITD supports the city's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile location and future signalization. Nary: But I'm thinking on the point of from a design standpoint of designing a roadway to generally match up with a roadway that doesn't exist across the street probably isn't Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 47 of 86 very practical today, but can certainly make that roadway within 50 feet, 25 feet, or whatever you suggest to the edge, so that it can be connected in the future, but I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this development agreement and connecting it there when even ITD isn't telling us where it exactly has to go, but it would get you there where you would like to be, I think, if you consider that and at least address some of the concerns you had in regards to the connection today, which mayor may not be practical. I don't know if that helps you, I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this agreement based on what your desires are. Rohm: Wow. That helps. Let's see. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to -- my same recommendation that we add things that we agree on into the development agreement and forward onto City Council and vote our conscience on staff's recommendation for the collector road. Rohm: I tend to agree with what you're saying. I guess the staff's recommendation doesn't provide any definition to the collector road, though, and so just to say you're going to have a collector road, that is not very well defined by that being included in the staff report, it still doesn't get it defined, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment would be that it really can't deviate very much, the final engineering decision about where it goes probably can only deviate by five to ten feet north and south, if it's going to have to have a curve, roughly, to follow the property line of the Bear Creek north of it, essentially the alignment that was on the CUP and that is -- that is shown on this as the disputed part, it really can only move a few feet when it's finally engineered. But it's got to be essentially where it shows. Moe: I agree. Rohm: And I agree with that. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you had a great idea that -- to move it forward to City Council with the changes that we have discussed and agreed to and go from there. The staff has recommended the collector street and we want the 1,400 square foot home, and -- Zaremba: Transitions at the stubs. Rohm: -- transition at each ingress and everything else we are pretty much in agreement. Would you like to make a motion to that effect, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Caleb, on the change to the Commission recommending that the R-8 zoning -- where do you want me to place that condition? Hood: There is, actually, two places that it's probably easier, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that it's probably just easier to modify two of the existing -- one, the development agreement provision on page -- oh, Exhibit B, excuse me, at the very top Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 48 of 86 of the page, miscellaneous application one, it says that lot size frontage and density standards of the R-4 zone, just change the R-4 to the R.8 zone and -- Zaremba: Plus a minimum lot size. Minimum house square footage. Hood: And you could add it there as well. Yeah. And a minimum house size. So, I would just modify that paragraph. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wait. Where is that paragraph -- what, one point -- Hood: It's one. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, just one. Prior to the final plat being -- Hood: Yeah. There is some bold and -- there is bold and underline there. That's what's being modified in the development agreement or proposed to be added to the development agreement. Newton-Huckabay: So, leave -- and just change that to R-8? Hood: And add your minimum house size, either in that same sentence or start a new or -- the other section is in the preliminary plat. It says some language about the plat not being approved as submitted. You could either leave that language or -- and approve the plat as submitted, take the disputed off the collector roadway -- you kind of have -- if that's the direction you choose to go. That's -- you have some options there. But that condition would need to be modified to begin at -- it talks about the R-4 development. Newton-Huckabay: And where -- what number is that one? Hood: 1.1.1. Same page. It's the next paragraph down. Borup: Oh, there we go. Hood: So, those are the preliminary plat conditions limiting the residential portion to the R-4 standards. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, where should I put the comment regarding transition of landscaping and sidewalks with the stub streets? 1.1? 1.1.11? Hood: You could either add a new one or if you felt that putting the landscape condition, that's 1.1.2. We could add a new bullet there to that -- it deals with landscaping, not so much with sidewalks, but it's, essentially, the same thing. Newton-Huckabay: Can I put the whole statement there? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 49 of 86 Hood: That works, too. Borup: And Commissioner Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: If I may. I might have some wording to help you there. Newton-Huckabay: That would be great. Borup: I'm not -- at least as far as the location that the sidewalk landscaping transition would match Bear Creek along Bear Track Drive, that would include that whole -- that whole stub. And, then, Alaska south of Whitehall, if that -- if that's what you had in mind. So, that would be this whole area here and this whole area here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we already match on the north. Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Based on the plans today. I have a question. As the staff report stands today with the statements regarding the collector, I am not in favor of voting for recommendation on all points to City Council. Is it still appropriate for me to make a motion and, then, vote against my motion? Well, I think that the collector issue -- that's what I was saying -- is to -- too complicated for us to decide tonight and whatever we decide tonight is not going to resolve the issue for the developer and/or the public who is here tonight, going back and redesigning or -- is not going to solve the issue for the public or the developer as well. The only thing that's going to solve the issue for the public and the developer on this collector is for a final decision to be made. I would hope that you would agree with me on that. That's the reason why I recommend that we move it on to City Council as written and vote our conscience on the remainder of the report. Borup: So, you're saying you don't really have an opinion on the collector that you want to vote on? Newton-Huckabay: The way it's recommended in the staff report I am not in favor of it. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, I think probably Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comments that for her to make the motion and, then, vote against it wouldn't be appropriate, so let's just -- would you mind making a motion and I think we have -- Borup: Well, I don't think I was going to make the same motion that she would. Rohm: In any case -- Borup: But Mr. Zaremba probably will. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 50 of 86 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to -- Borup: But I would be glad to make a motion. Rohm: Somebody. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I don't mean to be difficult here, but I -- Rohm: No. I agree. Commissioner Zaremba, would you, please, make a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- one moment while I find the first part of the notes here. Oh, here we are. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 06-040 and MI 06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval; Exhibit B, the first page of that, under miscellaneous application, paragraph one, within the bullet where the bold underline is, I would change the beginning of the bold underlined to read: And development of single family residences on 12 acres that comply with the lot size, frontage, and density standards of the R-8 zone, instead of R-4, with a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet. The second sentence prior to occupancy I would leave as is. I would add another sentence after that that says that landscaping and sidewalks will transition at the stub streets to match the adjoining stubs. Then, in site specific requirement preliminary plat, paragraph 1.1.1, in the middle of that it mentions R-4 development, I would change that to R-8 development. In paragraph 1.1.2 I would add another bullet that says landscaping and sidewalks adjoining existing stub streets shall match. Mr. Moe. Commissioner Mae. Moe: I have got one question for you. Zaremba: Yes. Moe: If you look under -- back up under number one in your miscellaneous application, in your last sentence in the bolded area, what -- do you want to do anything with that? Zaremba: No. It has to be -- it has to be a public roadway. It can't be a private one. Moe: My concern is accepted by ACHD when we have been told that they will not accept it. Zaremba: Well, if it's built they will accept it. Rohm: I agree with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 51 of 86 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of -- let me put my glasses back on -- MI 06-004 and PP 06-040, to include staff comments with -- as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: There is four in favor and one dissenting. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Schultz: Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in and this is the longest hearing that we have ever had that I have been a part of and thank you all for coming in. And we are going to take another short break and when we return we will talk about the balance of the agenda. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the public -- the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with -- do we have to open AZ -- the Portico Place Subdivision to accept withdrawal? Borup: Go ahead. It will cover it. Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-039 and PP 06-037, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision, for the sole purpose of withdrawing them from our agenda. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept their letter of withdrawal. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept their letter of withdrawal for AZ 06-039 and PP 06-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.