Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 15, 2007 PZ Comm Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 55 of 80 Rohm: It's been approved. There was one dissension. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you all and at this point we are going to take a ten minute break. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. And before we open up this last Public Hearing, I'd like to return to the start of the agenda and we continued Item No. CUP 07- 001 to the end of the meeting, because the applicant wasn't here and I have been informed that the applicant has requested that we continue this to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, with that being said, I'd like to suggest that a motion be presented to continue this to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1 st, 2007. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011 Request for a Rezone of 1.0.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3 common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Rohm: Okay. That being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, of RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, both items are related to the Sundial Subdivision and begin with our staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 56 of 80 Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Just a brief introduction before I go into the heart of the staff report. I don't know if everyone remembers, but the last time this public hearing was opened there was a brief discussion of how that day I found a document that related to this subdivision in the basement of this building that kind of changed some things. And so that's why it was continued. So, there really was no presentation given at that time and it gave staff and the applicant time to review that development agreement that we ended up finding and numerous changes have been made since then. A new staff report was issued and I believe all interested parties have received copies of that new staff report and that's why we are here tonight. So, I'll go on and just begin with a normal presentation. The main - - one of the main things that was changed was the withdraw of the rezone application. This application started out as a preliminary plat and a rezone and now is simply just a preliminary plat due to one of the provisions in the development agreement. With that said, the applicant Gemstar Development has applied for preliminary plat approval of 28 single family residential building lot, three common lots, and one other lot, which contains a cell tower and it's basically described as phase two of this development, in the existing R-4 zone. The site is located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick Road and a half mile east of Ten Mile Road adjacent to Turtle Creek Subdivision. Right in here. This parcel. The one existing feature on the site of note is the 150 foot tall cell tower that has been on this property for quite some time and from what I understand from numerous public input and the applicant, it used to be a lot taller than 150 feet, but a couple years ago it was dropped to 150 feet, and at that time it, basically, made a lot of this property eligible for development, because, then, part of this land was out of the fall zone of that cell tower and for a long time none of the land was out of the fall zone, because it was so tall. Adjacent land uses and zoning. As you can see, it's -- this property is almost completely surrounded by residential -- it completely surrounded by residential development, most at an urban density. To the north there is single family homes in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. To the east are single family homes in the Turtle Creek Subdivision. To the south is also Turtle Creek. And to the west you have Field Stone Meadows Subdivision. And there is also this lot right here, which was subdivided of a part of Field Stone Meadows, but it's kind of a larger lot that was a remainder lot from that subdivision. There is an existing home. It's about 2.1 acres, if I'm correct. The overall project description, we can kind of move on to the aerial photograph. This gives a good idea. That cell tower is kind of located right in the middle. There is numerous guide-wire boxes and things located all around there also. We can move on to the preliminary plat. As stated earlier, there are 28 residential lots proposed, three common lots, which are located -- one common lot here, one common lot up here, and, then, there will be a common lot for that micro pathway. And the other lot is this circular lot, which will be a lot and block in the subdivision that contains the existing cell tower. The applicant is proposing to construct various streets. The Fieldstream Drive and Marburg drive are the two major streets. I'm probably going to get this wrong. I believe Fieldstream comes up from the north -- is that correct? And Marburg -- I mean Marburg extends to the north up through the site and Fieldstream comes from the -- comes from the east. These -- also, as part of this development the applicant is required to complete the construction of Kubik Street, which is only a partially completed street section at this time. Also, there is going to be a completion of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 57 of 80 this cul-de-sac and the creation of a T intersection to facilitate the redevelopment of this parcel in the future. Other than that, ACHD did submit comments on this project and they were included in the staff report. And that is -- the one also thing of note is that after reviewing this -- this is 2.1 acres, actually. This is the Bledsoe property to the -- to the west and staff has required -- and as shown on the preliminary plat, the applicant's proposing a stub street to that property. The only issue that we saw with that stub street that -- much like that presentation I had earlier, we are concerned always with double fronted lots and as proposed this stub street, if it were extended kind of straight in and turned up into a cul-de-sac or knuckled or something like that, it would create a double front situation for this lot right here, this existing lot in the Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision. So, what staff has proposed and required a condition in the staff report is that this stub street be shifted a minimum of ten feet to the north, so the southern portion of the stub street would be ten feet to the north of this rear property line, so we would have that ten foot buffer, much like on the Deklan Subdivision, which was discussed earlier. The applicant is proposing .53 acres or five percent of open space, which is combined in those common lots and micro pathway that I discussed and that micro pathway will act as a future connection, from what I understand, to a future open space that will exist in this future phase of the development and that will serve that when it develops out once the cell tower is removed. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is medium density residential and the -- let's see. The gross density proposed is 2.64 units per acre, which is a little bit misleading and, as discussed, in the staff report, that the 2.64 units per acre takes into account that large lot, but if this were to develop out at a normal density, the density would go up to about 3.5 units per acre -- per acre for the entire development. So, staff does view that as in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There were -- there is no variances being requested and staff views this as complying with the Unified Development Code. And just -- I think it's appropriate to provide a brief -- a brief history of this property. I know there may be some discussion of it tonight and so it's probably a good idea that we know -- the Commission is completely aware and the public also of what's going on here. In 1994 the subject property was annexed and zoned to R-4 as part of the Turtle Creek Subdivision and at that time the property received preliminary plat approval for 40 lots as part of the Turtle Creek preliminary plat. These 40 lots were originally designed to be phase four of the Turtle Creek Subdivision and as you can see it's pretty clear, because there are some uncompleted cul-de-sacs and things like that as part of the Turtle Creek Subdivision that just never were completed and there is various reasons for that. Mainly it was that cell tower that was placed on the site and that received some sort of prior approval through the county and by the time Turtle Creek got all the way out there they realized they couldn't develop that spot and there are maybe other reasons which staff is unaware of. And also as part of that -- so, basically, what happened was that plat no longer applied, it's been so long and the developer is requesting changes to that, so that's why they are requesting a new preliminary plat, but along with that there was a development agreement that was entered into on this property that still is in in effect and the development agreement clearly states that all the lots had to be 8,000 square feet and meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 zone and the frontage requirements and things like that. So, that is why this plat is back before us revised as an R-4 -- as an R-4 plat that meets all the dimensional standards of the R-4 zone. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 58 of 80 Other than that, there is probably -- there may be questions, but staff has no further analysis really. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Justin, thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have none. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Noriyuki: Thank you. Scott Noriyuki with Gemstar Properties, 738 South Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. Gemstar is the developer of this project. Staff has done a good job outlining all the statistics for the project. We are happy with all the conditions. I do want to take a minute to go over a couple of the items briefly and, then, I will just stand for questions. The cell tower itself, we put a lot of thought into that. We are putting out a notice of termination with the lessees on that property and we anticipate actually pulling that down in the future. We are still negotiating that, what the actual timeline is. It isn't determined at this point. There are two primary setbacks that we have to work with for that fall radius. One is the residential setback, which is 125 percent of the height of the tower, approximately 185 feet to an actual structure or the 172 -- the actual lot. Then, we have the two times the height for a public right of way, which is the road, hence the nice curve that I put on there. Our open space is five percent, standing on its own with the phase one, and when we go into phase two the density does go up, but that open space for phrase two is actually approximately 14 percent, which we will put a tot lot in there. In the interim the micro-path that will plug into the future phase, we will be putting a four foot fence, it will be adequately lighted, so nobody can hide there. There was some concerns from the fire department and the police department as far as safety and fire hazard on the project. We have agreed to keep the project mowed, the phase two portion of it, as well as the entire property until we develop it. We will keep that mowed. We have got it under contract with a local company, as well as cleaning up debris on the project. Furthermore, we have agreed -- I spoke with the fire department and the police department today. We have agreed to inspect the fencing, make sure that -- that surrounds the base of the cell tower and the guy wires, make sure that three strands of barbed wire and the posting are up and adequate, in hopes that it's a good deterrent, nobody tries to climb it. Additionally, as far as pressurized irrigation, we have got a unique situation on this project. We actually have project shares within Settlers, as well as Nampa-Meridian. Not enough in either one to satisfy our need, but during the preliminary plat process and it appears the ultimate construction docs for Turtle Creek, they did put in provisions -- there are three, possibly four, but three verified pressurized irrigation stubs to our property. Turtle Creek and Tumble Creek pressurized irrigation is actually owned and operated by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and I have spent some time speaking with them as far as what our options would be. What they would like to see and what they are proposing is that they take the two systems and connect them through Sundial creating a loop, which sometimes helps pressure issues. Both homeowners associations expressed a lot of concern for existing pressure. Additionally, next week Nampa-Meridian will be meeting Settlers to facilitate the transfer Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 59 of 80 of the prospect shares we have there over to the Nampa-Meridian, so that we have the adequate amounts we need there, as well as once the design has taken place we are responsible for upgrading any distribution lines or pumps to insure we don't have pressure issues, nor does Tumble Creek or Turtle Creek. With that I will stand for any specific questions. Rohm: I guess my first question is did you have a community meeting? Noriyuki: We did. We did prior to our original hearing we had here that we continued. There was a recommendation to have a second neighborhood meeting and we did have that. Rohm: And you have had that as well. Noriyuki: Yes. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Two quick questions. First, the -- I'm trying to figure out the reason for the irregular shape. Is that because that's where the guide-wires come down? Noriyuki: That is correct. There is a large cement structure that's in place there, but the desired depth that I wanted for those lots kind of dictated that. When we do the phase two we will probably do a lot line adjustment on those to smooth them out. But we wanted nice deep lots to this first phase. Siddoway: Okay. And the tot lot you described, that's part of phase two? Noriyuki: That is correct. And I apologize. If you would take a look at these. The third page has a phase two conceptual on it. Mind you, that is the original plat that was submitted, but it will give you a visual of what our intent is as far as the size of the park and how we are correcting it. Siddoway: Okay. That's alii have. Noriyuki: Third page. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. There is quite a number of you out there. What I'd -- there is a long list of people that have signed up for this particular project and each and every one of you will be given an opportunity to speak if you so desire. But, typically, what we do, we first ask if there is a spokesman for a subdivision that is going to speak for a large body and if, in fact, there is, then, that individual will be given additional length at the podium. If not, then, each individual spokesperson will be given three minutes and the thing that we would ask is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 60 of 80 that if, in fact, your specific testimony is a mirror of somebody else that has spoken, it's fine to come up, but just at that time say that my issues have already been addressed. So, the first thing that I'd like to do is see if there is a spokesman for a homeowners association that would like to come forward and speak and, then, I'd also want to see a show of hands for the individuals that that person would be speaking for. Are you a spokesman for a larger group? Pardon? For Turtle Creek. And your name is -- okay. Could I get a show of hands for those that James Hall will be speaking for? Okay. That's a significant body of people. James, would you like to come forward, please. And I want everyone to know that just because he's speaking for a larger body, if, in fact, there is a specific issue that he doesn't address, it does not preclude anybody from speaking, but we would appreciate you honoring the fact that he is speaking for a larger body. With that you have got -- Hall: Thank you, Commissioners, Chairman Rohm. Thank you. Scott and Justin about covered a lot of this. We have got some history with -- Rohm: Oh, could you state your name and address. Hall: James Hall. 2524 West Whitelaw Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. As Justin described, the original was going to be a rezone to R-8, which was a lot of the concern. Being that's been rescinded and we are staying with an R-4, that took a lot of the concern out of it. We still have concerns about the tower, concerns about our HOA and how this development will affect. As you know, the original developer had planned this as phase four of our development and as you can see by the map, it finishes up North Cinnamon -- the four lots on North Cinnamon, two lots either side of the West Whitelaw Way cul-de-sac and, then, of course, the stub from Marburg and our main concerns are we are real proactive HOA. We take a lot of pride in our community. We -- some would say we are a little strong, but we take pride in our values and know what we have got. I personally have lived here 33 years, so I have seen the city grow quickly and we'd like to keep it nice. So, let me get on. I think probably the most important part is all of want to see the cell tower gone. The original developer had an agreement with the lessee and at that time we believe there was something -- the City Council denied it and we believe there was an ordinance in place at that time that didn't allow it to move within the City of Meridian and so it was denied. So, he laid in wait to finish his development until the expiration of that lease, which we never gotten conclusive time frames. We have been told it was seven years from '94, which, obviously, at this point we have well expired that, so we don't exactly know where that's at. We are glad to see that Scott and Gemstar are in the process of getting that removed. We have safety issues with it. It presents liability issues for the developer, as well as safety issues for us and the children that re in the neighborhood. So, we know that you don't oversee that, but we want -- we would hope that as it goes on to City Council that that, hopefully, is forwarded as the prime concern within the neighborhood, Tumble Creek and Turtle Creek. Another is the irrigation issues and the pressure issues that lie in with that and Scott, again, has addressed that. You know, as long as Nampa-Meridian is doing due diligence to make sure that the issues -- that the irrigation waters are not overtaxed, leaving us some pressure issues, because we are kind of in that -- at that breakpoint Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 61 of 80 now where certain times of the day, you know, as most people decide to water when they home or whatever, we do have some pressure issues, so we just want to make sure that that's not -- that doesn't become a worse situation. Again, our homeowners association is -- our prime concern -- we want to make sure that -- that this development brings in at least equal to or above what we have in place and also so that issues or problems that they may have with their development don't spill into ours. And I think that's the majority. We are doing everything we can to protect our values and, obviously, as most people have spoke tonight for each of the hearings, that that's paramount. So, I would say -- Moe: Can you speak to some of the problems you're concerned about? Hall: Oh, we have had a lot of problems with recreational vehicle parking, parking of non-running, non-licensed cars, to, you know, issues of fencing, a lot of that, and that seems to be as we noticed, unfortunately, with some of the developments that are south of us towards Cherry Lane, have fallen into disrepair and that's what we don't want to happen to ours and everyone around us, too, for the betterment of the city. So, that was one. And, then, any concerns that if -- we have worked with Scott. Scott's willing to sit down with us and work with us on the CC&Rs and we have looked at two options and that is either mirroring our CC&Rs or possibly looking at a -- letting us adopt him into our HOA, which will be ideal, and are preferable, but -- so -- Rohm: How did that discussion go, I'm kind of curious. Hall: Actually, I don't -- I would say at first I don't think it was received well, but I think now that the developer and I have had a previous discussion I think we are actually on a lot more even ground than we originally thought. So, it's a matter of hammering out the fine details and making sure that, you know, we are on the same plane and that we want the same thing for our homeowners as we move along. Rohm: Okay. Hall: So, any questions? Rohm: No. Thank you. That was -- if I could just encapsulate it, though, just for a moment. The primary issues were the zoning, making sure that we stuck with the R-4 zone, as opposed to the R-B. Hall: Stuck with the R-4. Correct. Yes. Rohm: That was primary. Hall: Yes. We believe that was rescinded -- Rohm: Well, the application for rezone has been withdrawn and so they are going to stick with the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 62 of 80 Hall: The R-4 zoning. Rohm: With the R-4. So, that was the primary issue. Hall: That was the original primary issue, yes. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman? I think you alluded to this. I wasn't sure what the answer was when the Chairman asked and that was on incorporating this into your homeowners association, so would that be your first choice? Hall: That would be our first choice. Borup: Okay. Hall: Being that they are, basically, finishing what was our fourth phase. Borup: I mean that was the original intention. Hall: That was the original intention, yes. And, unfortunately, our developer was stopped due to the fact that he was not able to -- Borup: So, is that discussion still going on to incorporate in, so that -- Hall: Yes, it is. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Any position on the irrigation as far as the connection of the -- the two systems and are you -- Hall: I think -- our thoughts for the Turtle Creek is just to make sure that we did not have a pressure issue, overtaxing the system at that point. I know he's got -- as he described to me, he's got three options now. At that time he only had two and one was to stub off of Tumble Creek to the north. He had an option in the northwest corner at possibly tapping into there and, then, I think -- and he may correct me, but with meeting with Nampa-Meridian they found the stubs that actually let off of ours, which was, obviously, originally set there for the fourth phase, so -- Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 63 of 80 Hall: Thank you. Siddoway: There is another spokesman. Rohm: I believe there is a second spokesman. And would you like to come forward, please, and before I have you start speaking, I need to see a show of hands for whom this gentleman is speaking. It appears as if it's almost about to the -- and, please, state your name and address for the record. Johnson: Bill Johnson. 1940 West Lowry in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. And I live on the corner of Rough Stone and Lowry, just to kind of give you guys an idea where I'm at. A couple of our big concerns, first off, was alleviated when we found out the R-8 was rescinded. But the next one is traffic flow. Currently, Rough Stone is, as some of my neighbors call it, the Meridian speedway, and everybody that comes off of Ustick to come down into Turtle Creek or even to hit Chateau, and some of that area, comes flying down through there. When Linder Road gets back up at Linder and Ustick, which we all know it does, everyone cuts through our subdivision at about mach one. And adding these extra homes -- I know the R-4 was there, we all expect that, I think one of our big concerns is is there a way we can get traffic calming through our sub going down into that, because if you look at the overall plot coming off of Ustick, they are going to come down through Glennfield, hit Kubik into that subdivision, the new one, or they are going to come off of Linder, hit Rough Stone via Tumble Creek and drop down, causing some real concern for our kids that are out there in the streets and I know that the citizens in Turtle Creek have the same concerns with some of the people coming through their sub, so some sort of traffic calming or something to kind of help us all out in that corner. I don't know if you guys have any pull with ACHD on getting the internal speed limits reduced, but I've love to see them 20 miles an hour, instead of 25, so -- Siddoway: Can you point to which corner you're talking about? Johnson: Yeah. Can we go back a little to the aerial? Right here where this Kubik ties in, they'd hit Glennfield and Glennfield goes straight up to Ustick and I'm right here on Lowry and people come down Tumble Creek currently, hit Rough Stone right here and come -~ come just flying down into that subdivision. I know my neighbors can speak to the fact that when I'm out there, if I see people speed by us, I've tried to throw baseballs at them and stuff, because it is an extreme safety concern. I have seen cars make this turn onto Lowry on two wheels they have been coming so fast. So, adding those few trips -- I know, what, 26 -- about 120 trips a day isn't all going to come through our neighborhood, but that is a concern of most of my neighbors there on the Rough Stone and also the people there in Kubik and Glennfield, it's going to add the traffic. Another big one we had was the discussion on the irrigation. I'm glad to hear that they have been talking to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, because I do have pressure problems during the summer, I have a silting problem with mine, and I know a lot of other neighbors have and when the church went into the west of us, they had to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 64 of 80 upgrade the symptom a little bit. We are hoping that when they come -- when this sub comes in that they have to also upgrade to make sure we don't lose our irrigation. Rohm: When the church came on line did it improve the system somewhat? Johnson: They put some stuff on, but it didn't really improve the system at all. And Doyle back here is saying it's worse. He's, actually, lived in the subdivision longer than I have, so he would have more history there, but I'm on a dead end and I know that mine decreased my pressure, so -- with that -- I think that's everything for you guys; right? I'll stand for any questions. Siddoway: No questions. Just a comment. You know we don't -- we are not able to control the traffic calming devices like speed bumps, things like that. ACHD controls those. And it sounds like the main need for those is actually outside of the location of this. You know, this could add some traffic that would use those same streets, but the needed location for that traffic calming is probably off site from this particular proposal and within the subdivision, do you agree? Johnson: That could be some of it, but if there is some deterrent to making -- coming from our subdivision down into that area where they have got an extra stop sign or two, they might avoid that area and come in on some of the other more arterials. There is no real good arterial that feeds this. If you look -- even coming in off of Turtle Creek it kind of dead ends and, you know, they don't have a good collector for a subdivision -- residential collector in there. Rohm: The comments that I would make to you on the traffic calming is the existing road structure that's there right now, notwithstanding this future development, it appears to me that it was designed specifically to calm traffic, because there is not -- there is not quarter mile runs that don't have intersections and -- and I'm not saying that that's the way it's turned out, I'm just saying that as subdivisions are designed, they have intersections every 300 feet or something like that, to specifically calm traffic and it sounds like you've just met some Parnelli Jones want-a-be's in your neighborhood. Johnson: Actually, if you take a look a Rough Stone, it kind of makes that general bend there and, then, it is at least a quarter mile straight shot, there is no stop signs on that intersection. We actually petitioned ACHD to get some stop signs put in our subdivision, we got one at Tumble Creek and Rough Stone on the Tumble Creek side, so the people didn't run into -- Rohm: The way it was moving traffic, uh? Johnson: Yeah. But at my corner they said it wasn't busy enough to warrant a stop sign. I'm a block away from that other one. So, we have tried -- that Rough Stone is a straight shot that's probably close to a quarter mile in length. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 65 of 80 Rohm: It does have the intersections, though, and, theoretically, that's supposed to calm traffic somewhat, but from what you're saying it doesn't sound like it's happening. Johnson: It doesn't work. And we have even got the little drainage-- Rohm: The dips in the road. Johnson: -- and that just gives them a good launching point. Rohm: Wow, it sounds like you need a police officer to patrol your street. Johnson: Thank you for putting that on the record. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Baird: Mr. Chair? As long as we are putting traffic calming on the record, I think we should -- we should mention that throwing softballs is not an approved calming -- traffic calming measure. Johnson: I agree. It isn't an actual throw, but, you know, I'm out there -- I have even yelled at drivers and got the finger back, so -- Rohm: You're number one? Johnson: Yes. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Johnson: So, you know, it is bad and I can't even say where they are -- you know, they are coming out of Turtle Creek or heading into Turtle Creek, but I can't tell if they are passing through or not, because that seems to be a good access way from Ustick down farther south. Rohm: You might try and capture a license plate number and maybe they can get a visit from a -- Johnson: We tried that, but, you know, if there is something that -- you know, recommendations that you start seeing some of these other stubs, in-filling in and stuff, you know, that would be real helpful to the other-- Moe: You said you had petitioned ACHD in regards to stop signs. What about any type of speed bumps and whatnot through there, especially on Rough Stone? Johnson: I don't know if they -- I don't know if they would specifically want the speed bumps. Personally, I'm not a big fan of speed bumps for my profession. It tends to tear up fire trucks, so -- but, you know, traffic islands and stuff like that tend to help a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 66 of 80 Rohm: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your testimony. Okay. I think, basically, the traffic -- speed of traffic throughout the subdivision and the zoning are the primary issues and, then, secondary to that or maybe a third issue would be the irrigation. And so we have heard all three of those and so I guess with that being said I'm going to go down through the list of individuals and if you have some additional testimony to -- we want to hear it. And so I will start by just -- I'm going to read every name on the list one at a time and they can choose to speak or not. Ron Whiting. Whiting: Yes. I'm Ron Whiting. I live at 3197 North Bluesprings, which is in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. And I agree with what the gentleman just said regarding our subdivision. I have a little experience in the past regarding traffic calming where I used to live. I don't say which state, because I don't want to say California, but I don't really think that speed bumps are a good thing. First of all, people with bad backs or other parts of their body don't particularly like to go over those speed bumps, it's hard on their system when they are already -- when it's already damaged and also the emergency services people don't really care for the speed bumps. It's not good for their -- their efforts to get to destinations speedily either. And other than that, the only thing I can think of is that I thought that the developer mentioned the phase two; is that right? Rohm: Yes. Whiting: Okay. Which I haven't seen yet, so I don't know if it's appropriate to take a look at that. Rohm: We are going to get past phase one first. Whiting: Okay. Okay. The traffic counts, then, regarding the vehicle trips per day on the various residential streets out to the arterials? Rohm: Pardon? Whiting: Is there a traffic -- existing traffic count on the vehicle trips per day -- Rohm: The applicant will -- Whiting: Pardon me? Rohm: The applicant will have to address that, whether or not there is or not, but -- Whiting: Yeah. I'd like to see what the traffic counts would be -- anticipated traffic counts in the residential streets up to the arterials and that's alii have to say. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions of this individual? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 67 of 80 Siddoway: No questions. I'd just like to make it clear that we will neither require nor deny speed lumps. That's not in our purview, so -- Whiting: But at least you know how I feel. Siddoway Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Paul Dye. Lucille Fretwell. They are waiving off their opportunity to speak. Shawn Josi. Josi: My name is Shawn Josi. I live at 2565 North Marburg Avenue here in Meridian. If you can put the map back up. Right here, these lots here at the end, the previous developer was forced by the city to put the utilities in. Okay. So, I know that the city does have control over the development of what does take place, even though that was not his property, he was mandated by the city to put the utilities in. So, the utilities exist over here, they exist over in here, and they exist in here right now. And they were mandated by the city. And as you can see by the plot plan, these homes right here are going to face Turtle Creek Subdivision right here and right here. They will be facing our subdivision. And I know that you guys have talked about that you don't any control over, you know, as far as the CC&Rs and those type of things. The only thing I'd like to point out tonight is, yes, the developer has on the tenth hour contacted our homeowners association, in the tenth hour, and decided that he wanted to talk about -- but we still do not have anything definite on if he's going to be agreeable with the architectural or the bylaws of our subdivision or Tumble Creek has. And we know, as a homeowners association, at 28 homes there will not be a homeowners association. There will be nothing controlling those homes once they are put in. And so that's what our concern is. We are not against the developer, our concerns are keeping things consistent between the two -- between Tumble Creek and Turtle Creek and that's what our concern is. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Elaine Josi. E.Josi: Elaine Josi. 2565 North Marburg. We stated some of our concerns that we have, but just to clarify, the tower is a huge issue. It was a huge issue for our developer and that's one reason why he never has gotten to the fourth phase, he was waiting for that to be taken care of. The woman that owned that property wouldn't allow him at that point to purchase it and, as was stated before, there was an ordinance at the time when he had AT&T who was willing to move it to Ustick and Ten Mile, where they have -- if you're familiar with that area, they have some storage units and some other things, would have been an appropriate place in 1994 to place that. He was unable to do that, otherwise, he would have completed that fourth phase. I have actually spoken with him since Sundial has presented that and virtually that's what he was waiting for. I have also spoken with other developers and their concerns are with all the developing that's going on in Meridian there is a concern of anybody even wanting to buy something that has a tower like this where they are going to put a home there and have that ugly thing where people look at it. Gratefully, we now know -- the lady that owned it, unfortunately, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 68 of 80 either died within this last year or her health went bad. It ended up going to a trust. Kids didn't even know the property existed at the time. They had no clue that their -- that this was here, because we have had to work with them as the homeowners association previously because of prior issues, because there are a lot of problems with that and we had to work with them on that. But that tower is a huge concern and I'm sure it is for this developer as well, but for him to be able to sell those homes, that tower has to be dealt with, so that he can get his money and he can get people in there who are willing to do that with this land and as long as that tower exists that's going to be probably a little bit harder sell, which is a concern for us. And as stated by my husband, there is a concern with -- with the CC&Rs. We know you can have the best CC&Rs in the world, but if there is nobody there to enforce them, they are not worth the paper that they are written on, and they are in between two subdivisions that do have functioning and full and active boards that are keeping their subdivision in line and appropriate. So, in addition to the water -- I mean to Turtle Creek definitely, CC&Rs are a huge issue and we are grateful that finally this developer is wanting to talk to us, because we have wanted to talk to him since we meet with him in October in regards to this and realized that he had other concerns at that time and hope that he will follow through, because when all is said and done, he will -- he will move on and we will be left with whatever is there. And it's important that what's left there keeps the integrity of Tumble Creek and Turtle Creek intact and the only way that we feel that that can happen is if Turtle Creek or Tumble Creek have a say in those CC&Rs, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Anita Long. Borup: Mr. Chairman, could we maybe encourage the future people to state to things that pertain to this application, not take their off-site or if they don't have anything to do with -- with this subdivision. Rohm: Yeah. I think, basically, the -- the future development of, quote, unquote, phase two of this development, which would include re-platting of the cell tower lot itself, is not germane to this application at all and -- Borup: Same thing with the speed bumps and all that that's outside what we are even looking at here. Rohm: Right. Yeah. Basically it's the -- it's the issues that we have talked about, the -- the R-4 designation, the irrigation, and the -- and the items within the subdivision itself. And, Commissioner Borup, thank you for your input there. With that being said, Anita Long? She's gone home? Deborah Long? Gone home also. Allen -- oh, he defers. Michael -- from the field he says he didn't have anything more to add. Meredith Ishman. Ishman: Meredith Ishman. 2328 West Whitelaw Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And I just -- I just have a question, I guess, for -- for the commissioners. I'm just looking at previous subdivisions that have been presented tonight and I'm just -- just wanting -- like has been said before, this is an in-fill into an area that's already been developed and, as has been stated, that it had been originally thought of as Turtle Creek Four. My Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 69 of 80 question -- or my -- my thinking is -- I'm just looking at what is proposed here and most of the subdivisions that I have seen tonight -- usually there has been continuity within it. When you say this is Sundial Subdivision, there is -- you come in and the homes that are part of this subdivision are somehow connected. I just -- I just have questions regarding those and I don't -- and I don't have any answers, because, of course, it would have to be re-platted, but the question I had is you do see those -- the areas that are the four areas around the Cinnamon, which I believe in here. These areas. These homes here -- and, then, eventually -- and I realize you said not to bring up -- but I'm just saying in -- this is also, though -- eventually will be, but it's -- what I'm trying to get at is that all of these homes in here, these around here, they are not connected to -- I mean you don't get to them except through Turtle Creek. You can't get to them from Sundial. There is a small area -- a walkaway right in here, but, otherwise, most of the area right in here -- you can't get to. I mean this is Sundial in here, but these homes, even though they are part of it, they are not. I don't know if I'm -- Rohm: I'd like to respond to that -- Borup: What was your question, though? I don't think she has asked a question. Ishman: What I -- the way that it's platted, that -- seeing the other subdivisions, they are all connected, but these aren't and I'm just -- is there -- why they weren't somehow connected where they would all be -- I don't -- I know I may not -- I may not be -- if you're following what I'm saying, but they are -- they touch on the back lines, but they don't connect. Rohm: Let me respond to that if I could, please. Ishman: Okay. That's fine. Rohm: All subdivisions that come before this Commission and ultimately end up before City Council have to have that interconnectivity and these lots here, even though they may ultimately face inward towards your subdivision, there is still that interconnectivity between this subdivision and the adjacent development and that's as it is with every subdivision that comes before this body is they have to -- they have to work with adjacent properties and, quite honestly, that's the -- that's the equivalent of the lots that were proposed when it was part of phase four. I mean those lots on the end of that cul- de-sac. And to redevelop it now to have them face a different direction would have probably been more -- I don't know, probably wouldn't have been as easily received -- Ishman: Cost effective. Rohm: -- as it is right here. But the answer is that all subdivisions have to have that interconnectivity. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 70 of 80 Ishman: Interconnect. Okay. As long as they are just -- there is a way to get through all -- it just -- I was just concerned with the fact that there was -- I mean being part of Sundial, it did have that direct connectivity, if you want to say. Rohm: And that -- well, the answer is that interconnectivity between subdivisions is what we are desiring with each development that comes before the Commission and, then, ultimately forwarded onto City Council. Thank you for your comments. Michael McCarty. From the audience he says he has nothing to add. Doyle Christensen. Christensen: My name is Doyle H. Christensen. I live at 2903 North Rough Stone. My issue is we have had problems with our water in that Tumble Creek Subdivision from day one. And the church has gone to it and as of yesterday Scott hadn't called Nampa-Meridian water department. So, I don't know when he called, but it must not have been -- it would have been today. I just want it for the record, if you would, please. Something's got to be done about the water system. Rohm: Thank you. Christensen: Thank you. Rohm: Katherine Dowell. From the audience she said she has nothing further to add. Gerald Dowell. And from the audience Mr. Dowell defers. James Hall. Oh, he has spoken. Dr. Tolthy. Okay. Kevin Sorensen. From the audience he said he had nothing additional to add. Bill Johnson. He spoke. Kira Stigle. She doesn't have anything else to add. Scott Looney. Amber Looney. Raymond Amaro. Has nothing to add. Chuck -- nothing to add from Chuck either. Jim Bryan. Sandy -- Sadie. Her concerns have been addressed. Matthew Friend. He defers. Ronna Masgrow. Okay. Bradley Lloyd. And Ken Kinsel. Okay. That's all that have signed, but if there is anybody else that would like to testify, now is the time. You're welcome to come forward, sir. Herr: My name is Ronald Herr. I reside at 2721 North Cinnamon Place in Turtle Creek. Lot 1 of Unit No.3. A couple of things I wish to speak to first. I would speak to the fact that I did take the initiative and arranged a personal meeting with the developer Scott and we had that meeting this last week and we resolved -- we are in the process of trying to resolve the issues that are -- pertain to Lot 15 of his development and Lot 1 where we existing -- reside. He has committed to me that he will have a written summary of our discussions tomorrow and we can see if we can get them prevailed. What I would like to do here is reserve the right, in case we are not able to resolve our issues, to reserve the right to submit the issues on to the City Council for their hearing. The action will be here. Taken already here. I take one exception, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, but part or the development is to fulfill the improvement of Kubik at Fieldstream, having to live right on -- adjacent to that intersection and there are some traffic issues there, but I also will be making contact with ACHD and trying to bring those forth to them. And, agreed, the homeowners association is fragmented, but I understand your situation. A new issue that I think -- and I don't know if it's your purview -- is dust Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 71 of 80 control. When the actual work commences, you have already stated that it's totally surrounded by development at this point in time and I don't know whether you can impose any stricter dust control issues than what DEQ requires, but I think that could well be an issue when development does start, having spent some 30 plus years in lending and development and so forth, working with contractors and et cetera. So, I would raise that issue, that it could be addressed in your recommendations. I would -- and to be very stringent, I would appreciate that. Rohm: I believe that there is, actually, ordinances on the books already that address dust and debris and the like and maybe Commissioner Borup is more familiar just from -- I believe that there are ordinances on the -- Herr: Right. But if they could be emphasized in your action, that would be -- due to the situation that it's completely surrounded by existing residential development and airborne dust particles and so forth, that would be appreciated. Rohm: Thank you for your comment. Herr: Thank you. Borup: Maybe just one question. Rohm: Sir, he has one question for you. Borup: You had mentioned some -- working out some problems on Lot 15 and if that doesn't happen -- I mean you can always bring anything up to City Council. Herr: Right. I just wanted to -- Borup: But I didn't know if that's anything that's pertinent for us to know about tonight or -- Herr: I think we have it knocked out verbally and won't take your time and so forth. just wanted to put it on the record that we are working on it. Borup: All right. Thank you. Herr: And try to reduce to writing and we will go from there and -- Borup: Thank you. Herr: -- I have had a very good communication with Scott and he, actually, came to my residence and we sat down and talked about it. So, I gave him a kudo for that. Rohm: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 72 of 80 Herr: You're welcome. Rohm: Okay. There was one more lady that would like to speak, so come on up. Please state your name and address for the record. Fretwell: I'm Lucille Fretwell, 2886 North Glennfield Way. Rohm: Thank you. Fretwell: And I'm just a little curious how long this project will take where we will have trucks -- gravel trucks and construction stuff going through our neighborhoods. Rohm: That's a good question and I'm sure the applicant can respond to -- at least the infrastructure side of it. I don't know that he would be able to address how long it will take for all the houses to get built, but -- Fretwell: The heavy equipment and -- Rohm: But the infrastructure, I'm sure he can respond to that. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Sir, come forward, please. Coe: Jeff Coe. 2214 West Lowry, Meridian. That's in Tumble Creek. I have never been to one of these before. It's been enlightening. I think the wheels of progress are going to grind down all of the people who are concerned here tonight. I think that subdivision is going to happen. You have put off people that want to know about phase two, but if phase one doesn't happen, phase two will never happen. I think that this plot of land here is the abandoned child from the original development of Turtle Creek Subdivision. Somebody earlier mentioned that because it is such a small development in here it will never ever have its own homeowners association. The people that live in that small place will be on their own pretty much and I live in a subdivision that I chose to live in, because of the strong homeowners association. The people in Turtle Creek did the same. And I think for you -- for you people to ignore the two subdivisions -- the two large groups of people that are still here at 11: 15 in the evening and just stamp approval on this I think is wrong. Rohm: And I don't think anybody has ignored anybody. I think we have given -- Coe: I just -- you know, this developer is in here to build 28 homes and he will probably disappear and, then, somebody else is going to come in and do the phase two some day. Already this area is not built to handle the irrigation problems, it's not built to handle traffic problems, and I just think this is -- I don't know that it's written anywhere that this has to be developed as a residential area. Let's make it a park. Let's make it something other than an in-fill when the two subdivisions that are there now don't want it there. Turtle Creek -- if Turtle Creek had been developed originally without that tower problem, Turtle Creek would some control over those -- that development there, but Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 73 of 80 they will have no control over it. Tumble Creek will have no control. And I just see it as a very bad thing for both communities. Rohm: Thank you, sir. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Noriyuki: First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for being here at 11 :00 o'clock at night. I think I can go through most of the issues and, hopefully, I can provide a little more perspective. Not applicable to the phase one, but the tower lease is -- the formal termination is going out, we expect it to be a five year term before we can pull it down. We have no aspirations to relocate them. We are going to terminate it, we are not going to buy property for them and erect another one. That will be their business and that is our timeline for that. Moving into the CC&Rs and the HOA, we will retain that lot and block under Gemstar Properties' ownership. The integrity of this subdivision is equally important to me, because five years from now I want to have a viable place to finish it out, that I can sell the remaining lots. Furthermore, moving into the tower and the safety, we spent a lot of time working with the fire department and the police department to do whatever we can to mitigate that. I realize it's important for the community, equally important for me from a liability standpoint. I want to keep people off that tower and out of that lot until we pull that down. As far as the irrigation, I do want to be clear that we -- Gemstar Properties, me personally, has not had the tremendous amount of verbiage with the irrigation district. My engineers, Stanley Consultants, they front run that. They know what they are doing, they are the ones who design it. I interact with them and I'll make some final phone calls, so that I can speak to you intelligently, but by no stretch of the imagine do I -- do I design this. Furthermore, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and Settlers Irrigation District are well aware of this project and we received comments from them back in December. So, this isn't something that happened at the last hour, we have been working on this. As far as traffic, ACHD has not indicated any kind of a requirement for a traffic study. They haven't seen this as any kind of an impact and they have approved it as submitted. I guess that's my comment on that. As far as dust and fencing during the construction process, we are well aware that this is going to be a difficult infrastructure to put together without upsetting neighbors. We intend to -- whatever perimeter fencing isn't in and existing right now, we are going to immediately put up construction fencing, temporary, during the development, which is typically not required, it's only required to have perimeter fencing up for issuance of building permits. We are going to step up to the plate and see if we can't satisfy some of these folks to a higher level. Additionally, we do have EPA- SWPPP requirements for dust emissions for our tracking of dirt off of the project. Those are compliance issues that we have to meet and we intend on meeting them. I will be fined otherwise. So, I think there is some really good provisions put in place there to protect the homeowners and also we want to be a good neighbor. Moving into the HOA and the CC&Rs. A little bit of an arbitrary thing, because I don't know that you're necessarily a governing body over CC&Rs and HOAs. We do quite a bit of development in this valley. Our intention is to set up a quality project. We will hire a property management firm that will ultimately take care of the day-to-day -- make sure that we have lawns mowed, things repaired as necessary. And we will fund these. And there are requirements for adequate funding coming from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 74 of 80 District, we will have to fund into the irrigation system for emergency repairs on the 4th of July '09. So, this will be functioning. It won't be large. But this could be a very good functioning association. That's not to say we are not willing to talk to Turtle Creek and HOA -- Turtle Creek and Tumble Creek, HOA. There could be some really good advantages for me. I have submitted a draft copy to both HOAs, as far as my CC&Rs for them to review. I have also reviewed theirs and, quite frankly, I have some concern with theirs. They are older. You know, it's a process as we develop and become more state of the art, the type of CC&Rs -- or the expectation that I, the developer, want to place on the project, so that I can insure I have a higher level construction, so, yes, I can sell the lot. So, that's not to say we won't do it. We have some talking to do and I think we can do that and if it's mutually beneficial, absolutely. And with that I'll stand for questions. Rohm: I have a couple of questions about the irrigation. And the thing that I have heard over and over is the existing irrigation is suspect at best and so what my question of you, sir, is -- is it necessary that all three systems ultimately be tied together or would it be beneficial for you to maintain a separate line from Nampa-Meridian and not further degrade theirs or could you comment on that for me. Noriyuki: We do have some additional opportunities. Predominately, what is it, 8.44 of my project shares, which is well over three-quarters of my project shares, is actually in Settlers and on the northwest corner right there there is a gravity irrigation point source that in the event that I cannot make something work with Nampa-Meridian, I can develop my own pressurized irrigation system for the benefit solely for Sundial. So, we do have another route. Nampa-Meridian naturally sees an opportunity with us to create a loop system, kind of like a municipal water system. When you loop it you typically get better pressure. Additionally, they have got somebody coming to the table with additional water and money to up-size pumps and make repairs. So, ideally, they kind of get their cake and eat it, too. If it doesn't work we have another opportunity. But until the engineering is done and until the irrigation districts comment, because it is a unique situation, quite frankly, we don't know right now. Rohm: Okay. All right. Moe: Have there been discussions with Settlers in regards to you doing your own? Noriyuki: There has. Yes. Rohm: Well, I guess just to encapsulate the whole thing, as far as irrigation, this body -- I would -- I think I can speak for the group as a whole, but we are not the least bit interested in further degrading the existing irrigation to either of your neighbors -- Noriyuki: Absolutely. Nor do I want an insufficient PI system for my own project that's going to be an issue. Rohm: I believe that wholeheartedly. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 75 of 80 Siddoway: Follow-up question to staff. Does Meridian Public Works review pressurized irrigation system design or is that left to the irrigation districts? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway. If it's going to be a private system owned and maintained by the HOA, we will do a review of the HOA pressurized irrigation system to insure that it meets the standards of Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. We don't own and operate it, but we review it to make sure it meets Nampa-Meridian standards. I might just say that his comments of looping a system, while not doing a detailed review of this PI system, obviously, that -- when you loop a system you get better flows, you get better volume, you get better pressure. He mentioned also of moving shares from Settlers and to Nampa, which is done often on these developments where they span -- where they have irrigation rights in two separate districts. If you can't get that done to get more water into the system and upgrade the pumps to loop the system through, just generally, engineeringly speaking, that will improve the performance of the system. Definitely volume and pressure, in general terms. I mean I'm not doing a detailed review of this, but what he's saying is -- makes engineering sense. You loop a system, put more water into it, you upgrade the pumps, it's going to -- it's going to get a better system, just the looping, even if you didn't upgrade the pumps, the looping of it creates better hydraulic flow of that water. Thank you. Rohm: Just like you do with city water. Cole: Absolutely. We are always pushing for more and more points in a -- to increase fire flow, essentially. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yes. Scott, one of the -- one of the main things I heard from a lot of the public testimony concern was that, again -- and you mentioned that -- that CC&Rs and the homeowners association -- I realize that this body and the city does not -- does not approve those or require it, but you had mentioned it in your letter, so I think that kind of opens that up. Noriyuki: Sure. Borup: But you had talked about wanting some amendments to the existing subdivision CC&Rs -- you had some concerns that there needs to be updating and some stricter standards; is that what you're referring to? Noriyuki: I'll try and encapsulate it. By default it looks like if we were to annex we would fit best with Turtle Creek. It makes obvious sense. After reviewing their CC&Rs, there are several items that I'm not comfortable with. I don't feel that they are up to par as far as our expectations in the CC&Rs we currently use on our subdivisions throughout the valley. Not to say that they are bad CC&Rs and it is typically the people behind the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 76 of 80 CC&Rs more than what's on the paper, but as a baseline I would want some changes made. Examples. Predominately, no vinyl siding. I would want to require that there be a four foot wainscot, whether it be of stucco or a brick or a cultured stone. I would also put some requirements as far as warranty on roof shingles and shingle types. Just a few. Also, a lot of nuisance type items, aggressive dogs need to be on a leash where they can be moved. A cap on how many dogs and/or cats that the homeowner could have. Parking restrictions on the roads. We work hard to do a good development and they have a very good clean development, but I guess my feeling is it has to be a mutual beneficial agreement between them and us. Borup: Okay. I understand that. That makes -- and as you stated, you will be hiring a management company to -- Noriyuki: Correct. Borup: -- review and oversee the subdivision anyway, so -- Noriyuki: Correct. Borup: -- even if the homeowners in there are not actively involved, the management company is going to be involved. Noriyuki: That is correct. That is correct. Borup: Thank you. Siddoway: A question -- my question is for legal counsel that's on the same topic. While we don't approve CC&Rs, we could require in this case that they have an HOA and there is probably no problem with that to -- Noriyuki: I would concede. Baird: Mr. Chair, I don't have to answer that question if he's conceding. Noriyuki: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Siddoway: Nothing further. Rohm: Okay. Good. Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions? Moe: No, I sure don't. Rohm: Thank you, sir. We are done. Noriyuki: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 77 of 80 Baird: Mr. Chair-- Siddoway: Timing of the infrastructure. Noriyuki: How quickly will you get me through the city? Sorry. That's a late night joke. Obviously, I need to go -- we are at the preliminary plat stage. I am projecting a potential late summer start. That is, obviously, dependent on coming through City Council and, then, upon City Council we have to develop construction drawings. Borup: I think maybe the question would be how long of a construction time when you sta rted. Noriyuki: Five months. Five months. If I couldn't finish it in a summer as far as getting asphalt down, I would not start in the fall. Rohm: I think that was the primary reason for the question. Noriyuki: Okay. I'm sorry. I think that's a conservative timeline to get all of the landscaping in and be completely cleaned up and out the door. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Noriyuki: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Before you proceed I want to respond to the allegation that this body is merely rubber stamping this or that why not some other kind of project and I just wanted to remind the people in the audience that we live in a system of property rights. The particular company that's developing this property owns it, they are making the choice to develop it. You're taking their proposal, making sure that they meet the city's rules. If they meet the rules, they are entitled to your recommendation. If somebody else had bought it and wanted a park, that would be fine, but what you have before you is somebody trying to make their way through our system and you're doing your job in reviewing that. I just wanted to put that on the record, because sometimes people don't quite understand what your role is. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Baird. I appreciate your comments. And for the audience as a whole, I can tell you that we as a Commission take every single comment that you make and we incorporate that into our decision-making process and sometimes things work out just exactly as one body would like them and sometimes they go the other direction, but at no point in time is any testimony dismissed. I can speak for the -- I believe I can speak for the entire Commission from that perspective and I want to thank each and every one of you for coming in tonight and staying to this late hour. We have had later nights, but this is the latest that we have been here in a couple months. So, we certainly appreciate each one of you coming in tonight. And with that I think possibly it would be in order to close the Public Hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 78 of 80 Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, and continued onto February 15th, 2007, with no modifications. Siddoway: Would you be willing to add the requirement for a homeowners association in the subdivision? Moe: Well, he's already said he would. So be it. I would include that in my motion. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. Just a point of clarification. The request to rezone has been dropped, so are we just doing just the preliminary plat? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, correct, there is no reason to take action on the rezone application. I don't know if the motion was written improperly, that would be my fault, but I apologize for that if it's not written correctly. But the motion should only be on the preliminary plat, because as of right now there really is no rezone application. Rohm: I think we can make that modification right here when I restate the motion prior to a vote. Lucas: Just a clarification. I have just been told it is on the agenda, so maybe an acceptance of their withdraw would be necessary, then, for that application, just to address the agenda. Rohm: Okay. We will do that in a secondary motion. Lucas: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 79 of 80 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to have a vote on -- there has been a motion to move onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06~060, to include the staff report with no modification -- Borup: Do we want to withdraw the rezone first? Rohm: Do you want to do that first? Baird: Mr. Chair, it would be my recommendation that you take them in that order, that way once the issue of the rezone is off the table, you're properly acting on the preliminary plat. Just put that motion aside. Rohm: Okay. That's fine. We will just slip another motion in there first. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the withdrawal of RZ 06-011. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of the application for the rezone RZ 06-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Now, we have got the rezone off the table, we will now vote on the motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-060, to include all staff comments with the addition of a homeowners association as a requirement to this project. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Good night. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Could we get a motion to adjourn? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M.