2005 08-04
~annina and~eetinQ
Auqust 4. 2005.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 4, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p. m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and
Commissioner David Mae.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Mike
Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Mae
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, August 4th, 2005. We will begin our
meeting with a roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Okay. The first item -- or next item on our agenda is adoption of the agenda.
And we will take each of these items in order as they are stated on the agenda, but for
some of your benefit let me mention a couple of things. Items 7, 8 and 9, the subject is
Pinebridge Subdivision, they have not settled everything with ACHD yet and have made
a request that we continue that one, actually, indefinitely, which we may not do
indefinite continuations. When we get to that subject our sole discussion will be how to
table it to a future date and we will require that they re-notice it at that time. So, we will
not be discussing the substance of 7,8 and 9 tonight, just how to delay them. Items 15,
16 and 17. relating to Banff Subdivision, there has been a request to continue that until
our meeting of August 18th and we can expect to do that without discussing the
substance of those. Other than that, unless I hear objection, we will consider the
agenda adopted in order.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of June 16, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of April 25, 2005 Planning and Zoning Special
Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 2 of 57
c.
Approve Minutes of July 7,2005 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Zaremba: Next is the Consent Agenda, which is the approval of three different sets of
minutes and first let me ask the Commissioners if they have any comment on any of
these? And, then, I will admit that I do have a comment on a couple of them. No
comment on June 16th. On the minutes of April 25th, on page 36, about the middle of
the page, I mentioned Diane Kushlan and the spelling of her name is actually K-u-s-h-I-
a-no So, I would correct that spelling. Middle of page 36. And, again, at the bottom of
page 50, I mentioned her name again and, again, the spelling should be K-u-s-h-I-a-n.
Going back to page 41, one, two, three -- about the fourth paragraph down is attributed
to me speaking and, actually, that was Director Canning speaking, the sentence that
started, well, we are supposed to do a map. Those are my only changes on April 20th.
On July 7th, the only change is at the beginning, both under members present and
under roll call it shows Commissioner Rohm as present, but he was, in fact, out of town
that day. So, that's my only correction. Am I correct you were not here on the 7th of
July?
Rohm: I was not here.
Zaremba: Okay. And all of the votes accurately show that we had one absent, so it's
only on that first page. And the chair would entertain a motion to accept these three
minutes with the amendments.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we accept the Consent Agenda as amended.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Recommendation: VAC 05-011 Request for Vacation of the ACHD alley
through the center of the property in a 0- T zone for Steel Ventures by
Zeke Johnson - 27 East Broadway:
Zaremba: Item 4 on the agenda is a recommendation to the City Council and,
eventually, to ACHD. This is not a Public Hearing, but we will have some discussion
and, then, a recommendation and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 3 of 57
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant Zeke
Johnson with Steel Ventures, has applied to vacate a portion of the alley -- of an ACHD
owned alley in the block that lies between the railroad tracks and Broadway and also
between Meridian Road and Main Street, downtown Meridian. As part of the ACHD
vacation process, the applicant is required to obtain consent from the City of Meridian to
vacate the alley. The actual vacation of the alley will take place -- will be done by
ACHD, so this is the applicant's first step in the process and in this case the City of
Meridian is treated as a consenting party, much like in a normal easement vacation that
the utility companies would be. We are relinquishing any claim or any need for the alley
and, then, ACHD will go ahead and process the actual vacation. There were a couple
of conditions placed on the application by the Public Works Department. They do have
a city sewer main that does go through the alley and arrangements need to be made for
that. When something happens to be built over the alley, the intent of vacating the alley
by the applicant is that some day a building may actually cover the alley. When that
happens, if the city has a sewer main under there, that's, obviously, a problem, so we
did make some arrangements to insure that the sewer problems and sewer issues are
taken care of. If you have any specific questions I will let Mike handle those. So, the
applicant was required to submit a bond for the -- for an estimated cost of those
improvements before the application is heard by City Council. Other than that, I think I
will stand for any questions. The applicant has just represented in conversation with the
staff that the intent of vacating this is that some day a building may be built across the
alley. And I will take any questions now.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No.
Zaremba: I have one comment. The vacation of this certainly seems like a reasonable
step in the progress of this piece of property and I hope it does develop into something.
The one thing I would ask that we perhaps include in the notes to ACHD for them to
look at, the alley presently is a one way alley from east and west. This is a City of
Meridian public parking lot and we have just recently approved a development on what
used to be the Shell station and I guess I would ask them to consider what happens to
that traffic pattern with the one way -- one way alley, either needs to not be one way or
something else needs to happen. But that's just a comment.
Wilson: And, Mr. Chairman, I think you're correct, that ACHD will include that as part of
their analysis in the vacation process. It's kind of up to them to insure that some sort of
traffic circulation pattern does happen there and, on a side note, I think it's quite
possible in the future this entire alley may be vacated through discussions of what may
happen with this block. So, it may go away entirely some day, so -- not that they will
take that into current the process, but they will have some sort of means for traffic
circulation in the meantime.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 4 of 57
Zaremba: That makes sense. Thank you. Commissioners? Are we ready to make a
recommendation to City Council and, therefore, onto ACHD? I would entertain a motion
for that.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I move we recommend approval to City Council of File No. V AC 05-011, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 4th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for the Public Hearing portion of our meeting this
evening and for those of you who don't come very often, I will review our procedures for
you. The applicant and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time
together on each of these items and particularly the ones that have been continued
have been reviewed pretty thoroughly. So, we begin each subject with a presentation
from our professional staff. That will be followed by a 15 minute presentation of the
applicant where their -- what our professional staff will do is identify the project and
where it is and what issues have been discussed and anything that needs to be
resolved still. The applicant, as I say, then, has 15 minutes and that includes any
supporting staff of engineers or architects that they wish to bring to respond to anything
that staff has brought up or add anything that they feel we need to know about. At that
point, then, it's open to the general public and that is where we wish to hear your
comment and our feeling is if it's important enough for you to come down here, it's
important enough for us to make sure that we hear you, so we ask that you only speak
when you're at the microphone. Do come to the microphone and identify who you are
and where you live for the record, please. And we ask you to limit your remarks to three
minutes, so that we don't continue to go on until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning with all of
the hearings that we have. We appreciate that. We also appreciate it very much if you
can stand up and say I agree with what Joe just said and not repeat it, but only add
what you feel might not have been covered. We will know what you mean if you do that
and we appreciate it. After that, then, the applicant will have a chance -- they should be
taking notes while everybody is speaking and the applicant will, then, have a chance to
come back and clarify any questions that you have raised or explain anything that they
can explain and they are given ten minutes to do that. We have a handy light system
here. When the green light is on you have time to speak and, then, it will to go to yellow
and you should start to wrap up and, then, there is -- when the red light comes on,
please, conclude. It's not lit right now, but this is where it is right here. And, then, the
end result is that we will close the Public Hearing and deliberate amongst ourselves and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 5 of 57
make a recommendation to City Council on the project, where there will, again, be a
Public Hearing on each of these items. So, we try and iron out as many of the problems
as we can, if there are problems, before it gets to City Council, but there are public
hearings in both places.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 6. 34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato
Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: PP 05-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5. 89
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B
Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road:
Zaremba: So, that being said, we are ready for Items 5 and 6. I will open the public
hearings -- reopen the continued public hearings for AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014, related
to EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC, 701 Black Cat Road. And, as I said,
we will begin with the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Planning Commission, just to get you
back up to speed on where we are located, it's at the corner of Pine/EI Gato and Black
Cat, on the southwest corner there, and as you can see it's -- many of the surrounding
properties are developed in large five acre lots, but there are new urban density
developments close by. And this is the current preliminary plat. And let me go back
and remind you that you did conduct a Public Hearing on this on July 25th and at that
time you asked the applicant to come back with the following changes: A design that
met the R-3 zone standards, instead of the R-4, a request for 11 single family residential
building lots, instead of 17. There was some discrepancy as to what the property was in
relationship to the current right of way that ACHD had acquired. So, there was just
questions about what the size was and the reason that staff had questioned that was
because at five acres, then, some additional open space requirements kicked in. So, I
think we have resolved those. And, then, a question about the future vacation of the 20
foot ACHD right of way on the south end of the property. And, then, along with that,
then, the applicant would no longer be requesting a step up in density if they kept it the
R-3 zoning designation. The applicant has done open space calculations. They seem
to be just a tad bit shy of the five percent, but if they square up their preliminary plat,
then, we feel that they will make that. And the staff report notes that they have
indicated a six-foot chain link fence. I think the applicant's representative stated that
they'd prefer to do a wrought iron fence along the Purdam Drain. Staff has also noted in
the amended staff report that they feel it's important to have a vacation application that
is submitted concurrent with this application. I believe that the staff report says before
the final plat, though. I'll have to check that. Sorry. And those were the primary
changes. These are some pictures. Again, this is where the two roads converge. You
will remember there is probably a lot of discussion about EI Gato and Pine. I think we
have those issues resolved as to how to go from two rights of way down to one. This is
the area along the Purdam Drain. The work in the front is the road widening project --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 6 of 57
or sewer project. Excuse me. And, then, as you will recall, there was some question
about an improvement project, but it is not on this site. So, with that I will answer any
specific questions. I think, probably, the applicant can address their changes better
than I.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I had, I thought we had -- was the original
application was 17 lots?
Canning: Yes.
Borup: I think we had only asked them to eliminate three, which would have brought it
down to 14.
Canning: They reduced it even more.
Borup: Right. I know. Right. You said one of our requests was to go to 11. I thought
we only requested 14, so they --
Canning: Okay. I will change the staff report on that one. Sorry about that. So, they
requested 14.
Zaremba: Well -- and my recollection is we stated it as a minimum of losing three lots.
Losing more lots is fine.
Borup: Right. No. I don't have a problem with that. Nice project now. But three was
what we had --
Zaremba: And my comment would be that I have noticed that we do have an
application for vacation of those 20 feet that we will be hearing on August 18th. Any
other questions from Commissioners? May we have the applicant, please?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon.
735 South Crosstimber here in Meridian. Anna did a pretty good job explaining the
changes we have made. To put it bluntly, it's more a major change, it went from 17 lots
down to 11 lots. As you have noticed from Anna's presentation, the comments that you
had with her, the recommendation was to reduce it by at least three. We had a
neighborhood meeting, the neighbors still wanted to see a dwelling -- a density dwelling
of about two units per acre and so we reduced it down to 11, which puts us right at the
two dwelling units per acre. And so after meeting with them we went down to the 11
units. In doing so, included a couple other issues as well. Open space. There is eight
foot wide detached sidewalks. The open space is measured through here. When Anna
talked about clearing up some angle points, we get the extra space, you can see right
here we have some small angle points, the right of way. The reason why we do that is
because ACHD owns this right of way here, but we can bring this squared and that gets
us to our five percent open space. Furthermore, if you go down here, we can see some
angle points. We can straighten those out as well and get to the five percent open
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 7 of 57
space. We met with the neighbors. At this point I think the neighbors are satisfied with
where we are at with the -- I noticed there were a few in attendance tonight and they will
have the opportunity to speak as well. I talked with a number of them, even after our
second neighborhood meeting, and tried to resolve some additional concerns. There is
still some discussion that you may want to have concerning Pine and EI Gato. At our
last hearing it sounded like there was some unresolved issues with the Commission as
to whether or not ACHD had heard this matter, having made a decision on this matter.
Prior to our last meeting the ACHD commission had made a decision that this was their
right of way and this is what they have requested us to do is to landscape this area, it's
EI Gato, we will maintain this as part of the homeowners association. We are not
allowed to count that towards our five percent open space. However, we are
maintaining it, just to refresh your memory. If you have any questions for me, I'd like
answer those at this time and I ask for approval of this project.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
McKinnon: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. We do have one person signed up to speak. Kathie Ferrera.
Ferrera: Good evening, Commissioners. One more time. Kathie Ferrera, 4960 EI
Gato Lane in Meridian. I think we pretty much have ironed out most of our concerns. I
have a plan here that they sent that shows how Pine Lane will meet up with EI Gato and
we haven't actually sat and talked about that, but if they can assure me that's it's not
going to happen in front of my driveway, I will be real happy. And I'm not sure that we
even have any neighbors in the audience tonight, except maybe one. So, I think that
tells you that the concerns are pretty well gone, because we had a couple of real heated
meetings here. And I would just like to take a minute and it's taken months for this
project to get going, because the neighborhood was not in favor of it. We all have
acreage properties out there, we were not happy to see a subdivision come in, but I do
want to say that these developers -- I am sure in the beginning it was kind of whether
they wanted to or not, they came out and they spent time with us and, then, we came
back again, we kind of warmed up a little to each other and we could talk without
fighting and I would encourage the Commission and P&Z -- really encourage you to
compel developers to go out and work with the neighborhood residents for projects like
this. Longstanding neighborhoods haven't seen any changes in 25, 30 years, it's pretty
unnerving. But I believe that helps. And I think -- I have to say at this point I don't
believe that we have any real objections to this project going forward. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Moe: I guess one thing I would like to tell you is thank you for that, quite frankly, that is
what we encourage and, actually, is somewhat of a requirement for neighborhood
meetings in order to come before this Commission here. Knowing that the neighbors
and the developers have had their meetings things go much easier in regards to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 8 of 57
understanding everyone's concerns and getting much closer to an end result. Yes, we
have had a few long discussions over this project and, quite frankly, in front of you I
would tell them that this project is very nice now, quite frankly. I'm very happy the way
this has turned out.
Ferrera: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I would comment that our current ordinance encourages the
neighborhood meetings. Meridian is in the process of developing a whole new
development code and that one insists that there will be a neighborhood meeting. It is a
requirement before they file. So, we are moving in that direction, but I appreciate your
comments as well. Mrs. Ferrera was the only one signed up, but there is an opportunity
for anybody else to speak if they wish to add a comment that has not been covered. All
right. Thank you.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: That being said, we will--
Canning: Before the applicant gets up, I do need to point out something. On one of the
findings that's -- is this area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned
in the future. I need to address that for a moment, because it states that we need to
have a new condition and a development agreement and there is no development
agreement. My concern is that there is no R-3 zoning category in the proposed text that
you were just -- the proposed Unified Development Code. If we could get the applicant
to state on the record and agree that they will come -- provide a letter stating that they
are okay with being rezoned to R-2, we absolutely need that. The standards for the R-2
district, as you will recall, are the current standards for the R-3. So, it will not have any
impact on the development of the property, but we do need their permission to rezone.
Zaremba: Thank you. We will ask the applicant to make that commitment
McKinnon: I will make that commitment. We will agree to the R-2 zone in the future as
the development ordinance changes. Those are the only comments I wanted to add.
Thank you for your time tonight. If you have any additional questions, I can answer
those now.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Moe: I guess the only thing I -- I am just verifying in regard to the fencing, what is the
fencing going to be?
McKinnon: We will have a fencing plan with that. We have got a ditch right there, we
want to do something that's nonflammable, so -- and they may do some burning there,
too, so it should be noncombustible.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page g of 57
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions? Any discussion needed?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Mae: I move we close the Public Hearing on -- let's see here -- AZ 05-012 and PP 05-
014.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council requesting approval of AZ 05-012, to
include all staff comments of the hearing date August 4, 2005, received by the city
clerk's office June 29th -- or July 29th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval
of PP 05-014, preliminary plat approval, to include all staff comments of the hearing
date July 4th -- August 4th, excuse me, 2005, received by the city clerk's office July
29th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 10 of 57
Item 7:
Item 8:
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: AZ 05..013 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 120. 15 acres from R 1, RUT, C-G and I-L
zones to C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East
Fairview Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: PP 05-015 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 120. 15
acres in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East Fairview Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: CUP 05-020 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for commercial /
office / industrial and multi-family uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O
zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of
North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Okay. Next item on our agenda -- I will open the
Public Hearing for -- open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and
CUP 05-020. All of these related to Pinebridge Subdivision, east of North Locust Grove
-- North Locust Grove Road and south of east Fairview Avenue. And I don't know if we
need a staff report. The discussion is this has been continued about three times and
the major issue -- there are several issues, but the majors are between ACHD and the
applicant about what to do with a portion of Pine Street that is included in this. The
applicant has asked that we continue this indefinitely, asking for the end of this year, the
beginning of next year. As a legal matter, we cannot continue except to a date certain.
We do have the option of tabling it and requiring that it be re-noticed, which we can do
without having a date and I don't know if the staff wishes to add anything or tell me I did
it wrong, but -- Director Canning.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Craig -- I'm sorry, couldn't
be at our kind of pre-meeting to talk about this with you, but after Craig and I talked
about it, there are a number of issues that are coming up that could affect this and the
tabling of this. In particular, the adoption of the Unified Development Code. I'm going to
get tired of saying that tonight, but I know it's going to keep on coming up. Right now
we are hoping for an effective date of September 15th. What I would recommend is that
you table this to the second hearing in -- or continue this to your second hearing in -- in
September for the sole purpose of discussing what would be done with it. That way we
can have the applicant here to talk about it, we can talk about -- beforehand we can talk
to him about his options and gives us time to go to Council to discuss any amendment
of fees if he decides to withdraw it, how much he can get back and things like that.
Given the size and complexity of the project, I would like to see it resubmitted under the
new code, but I think we need some time to work with the applicant and come back with
you on a -- what the best approach is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 11 of 57
Zaremba: Let me ask this: If you would prefer that it be discussed under the new code,
would it make more sense for us to recommend denial as it stands?
Canning: Not necessarily. I think that we could ask him to withdraw if we can come up
with some of the fees and things like that. This was a -- they requested a reduction in
fees from the City Council. We have not really spent all that much time on this,
compared to the fee we took in. So, I just -- I'd like an opportunity to talk with them
before you take an action and maybe we can come up with something more definitive
for you. It also depends a little bit on what gets adopted in the new code and when that
gets adopted. But I think we --
Zaremba: If we are using a specific date, such as September 15th, then, we could
actually continue it; right? As opposed to table it?
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: And that would not require renotice.
Canning: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: It just give us a chance to contact the applicant and come up with a game
plan, more than anything else.
Zaremba: All right. Unless there is further discussion, I would entertain a motion to
continue these items to September 15th, our regularly scheduled meeting.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And that may be answered at that meeting, but I was curious on why they are
having such a hard time coming to an agreement with ACHD. They said their -- you
know, they have been in discussion and haven't reached an agreement on constructing
of the road, why that's such a problem there. Who is being difficult here?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, not to point fingers at anyone, but they are
working back and forth and lawyers are involved. The long story short, hopefully, is that
Pine Street is not currently in their -- in ACHD's current capital improvement plan, so
they cannot be -- according to the current impact fee ordinance, cannot be reimbursed
for any construction of that residence they construct, so they are working an agreement
out on the side, so that they can be reimbursed for lanes and that just hasn't been
agreed to by both sides yet and I think I'll probably just leave it at that, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 12 of 57
Borup: Okay. So, that's all they are asking for is that ~- and that makes sense to me.
But it has been stated in their plan that Pine is designated to be developed -- to be
approved by development. It never was in their work plan. They anticipated it to be
done by development in that area. And that's been -- I don't remember how long that's
been, but that's been my understanding all along, but it probably wasn't anticipated that
there would be no credit for the impact fees, so --
Zaremba: Yeah. They consistently have used the phrase developer driven in response
to this portion of Pine, so I think that's why it's not on their plan.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That answers my question.
Zaremba: Let me get -- well -- or maybe a motion is in order, but a consensus of
Commissioners. Does September 15th sound unreasonable?
Borup: Is the agenda okay on --
Zaremba: I don't have an agenda for that, so I assume it's pretty open.
Borup: What an assumption.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Rohm: Move to close the --
Zaremba: Well, it's open, but we just want to continue them to September 15th, if that's
agreeable.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-
020, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
September 15th, 2005. End of motion.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 13 of 57
Item 1 0:
Item 11:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05.026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 15. 32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and
540 East Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15. 32
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family
detached units and single-family attached units with a request for
reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard
setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North
Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for AZ 05-
026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, all relating to Hollybrook Subdivision, 3265 North
Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road, and even though these have been continued a
couple times, this will be the first time that we will discuss any substance and we will
begin with the staff report, please.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we always know when we
are in trouble when I'm supposed to give substance, so I will do my best this time. This
is an in-fill development. As you will notice, it's an unusual shaped property, to say the
least. And it is surrounded on the west, the north, and, then, the northeast by
development. You have got Heritage Commons and you have got Sundance and, then,
you have on the eastern side Weaver Acres, is the larger one-acre subdivision that was
done through Ada County and is still in -- actually in Ada County's jurisdiction. They are
not annexed. This is a request for 55 building lots and 11 common lots on 15. 32
acres. You can see the existing house patterns. I have some blowups of this, so -- it's
very difficult to see, I recognize that. There are basically kind of three patterns to the
development. You have kind of mid size lots here that blend from Heritage Commons
to Sundance and, then, you have some -- given the very narrow width of this area, you
have a roadway, and, then, you have some quite small lots and, then, down here you
have got some larger lots that somewhat integrate into the one acre parcels to the north
and some larger lots in this area, including lots for the existing home. You can't see it
very well on this one -- okay. I tried to blowup some of the street connections. There is
a street connection down to Ustick and here you will see there is a little island right
here, so the right of way bows out. There is a traffic-calming item there -- island there
and, then, there is two pinches -- see if I can find them. Here is one pinch and there is
the other pinch right there. So, you can see it right there. So, what will happen in that
area, the area that would normally be available for parking gets kind of pinched off, so
that the road narrows. So, you will come in first, you will go around a curve, there will
be an island, you will go along the street length, there will be a little pinch and it will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 14 of 57
widen it back out again, another pinch and, then, as you come up to here another
island. I'm concentrating on these. because this was the big item of -- this is why it's
been continued many times is the discussion of how to make this road so that it wasn't a
straight shot and a high speed corridor. Then, as you come around the corner, there is
another island right here and another island here. So, as you come out of Heritage
there is an island and, then, you have got a little bulb or something like that and, then,
you have got another island here, you have to go around, make another corner around
another island. So, they have gone to great lengths to integrate traffic calming into the
road design. Just as -- this was the original design. As you can see, it was really a
straight shot. This did mean flipping the road. So, whereas before the road was against
the Sundance properties and smaller lots were to the rear of the one acre properties,
now there is the road immediately adjacent to the east property line. Staff is in favor of
this for a couple of reasons -- actually, I think we probably proposed it. One was that it
gave them the ability to curve this road a little bit and to meander it and also it facilitated
redevelopment of these properties. As you will see, most of the houses are built toward
the front of the properties and although -- we like to accommodate future developments
in all the proposals that come through and we thought this gave the ability to -- for these
folks to divide off a portion of the back property of their lots in the future and they would
have direct access. So, we are not requiring it, of course, but as those folks wanted to
maybe have less property to take care of, that would be an option that's available to
them. And that right of way runs right against their property line. So, there would be no
road construction necessary to subdivide those properties. These are some examples
of the housing that's proposed and these will fit on the smaller lots. Okay. All right.
The overall gross density of the project is 3. 59 units per acre, which is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and -- consistent with the median density residential
designation on the Comprehensive Plan. They have proposed six percent open space
at this time on the current landscape plan. Now, that landscape plan is based on the
former layout. There is a requirement for a new landscape plan. We would be looking
for the same amount of open space on that. They have requested -- they have
requested a number of reductions to our current standards. In particular, the frontage
requirement would go from 65 feet down to 55 feet and the lot size would go down from
6,500 to four hundred -- I'm sorry, 4,428 square feet. As part of their amenities, in
exchange for those reduced standards, they have proposed pathway connections to the
multi-use pathway in Sundance Place Subdivision and, then, seating areas along all
pathways. Here is -- and I will have the applicant point out some of those, because I
lost a lot -- one of these lots is a pathway connection lot from Quenzer. I think there
was some question about the -- the amount of roadway that's being dedicated to ACHD.
ACHD's condition number one states that there is 40 feet of right of way dedication,
versus the standard 48 that you would see on this. Our understanding is that the
applicant has agreed to put the sidewalk in part of the landscaped lots, so, therefore,
they are not requiring the extra eight feet of dedication. And I think I'll end staffs
presentation there and ask if there is any specific questions you have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 15 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have the landscape plan at the time, is that
what you stated, Anna?
Canning: The landscape plan that you have is the one that I -- it's the old one, it's -- you
should have one that -- like this in your packet, so you can see where -- where they
have moved the road, there is going to be some change in these landscape areas here
and I believe this one is still there, this is that connection. And, then, the buffers down
here would still be there. Just to kind of follow that up a little bit, are you anticipating the
same landscaping, just going to be somewhat moved over to the other. side of the street
and, then, basically, then, we are in a conflict with the other owners to subdivide their
property if there is landscaping between their property and the street; right?
Canning: We are not anticipating a landscape buffer -- as the right of way goes
immediately to there, so there is only two feet between the edge of right of way and the
sidewalk.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: So, as I said, the current plan has six percent. If the applicant has thought
about the new landscape plan, they probably should share that with you, because I'm
not confident that they could meet six percent with their current plan.
Zaremba: Back on your subject of right of way dedication, just a question on the staff
report. Exhibit D -- I don't see a page number, but it's number one annexation -- well, it
must be the first page of Exhibit D, annexation findings, paragraph D, the bottom, based
on ACHD long range 20-30 proposal, Ustick Road is anticipated to be a three lane
roadway at this point; is that correct? I thought everything I had seen said five lanes.
And, actually, it's a little scary if it's three. It would justify five lane right now.
Borup: I thought I had read somewhere where it -- yeah. It was five and, then, one of
the last -- one of their last reports went back to three and I never did understand why.
Zaremba: Have to watch them every minute.
Borup: Well, I don't know. I just remember reading that and I was -- I couldn't
remember who I was talking to and said, well, why is it saying three, I thought it was five
previously. But you would know more -- you should know more about that.
Zaremba: All of Ustick Road through Meridian is going to be five lanes.
Borup: That's what it was several years ago.
Zaremba: Yeah. It would worry me if it's three lane.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I can't imagine it not being five, especially if there is an
interstate or the highway -- .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4. 2005
Page 16 of 57
Canning: Five lanes would appear to be correct.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the 40 feet of dedication on this side is still okay for five lane,
though, right? If they are doing the sidewalk on this application.
Canning: That's my understanding.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: And that's what the ACHD report does say, dedicate 40 feet.
Zaremba: All right. Then, I had, actually, a comment that -- just a couple of typos.
Under conditions of approval, this is Exhibit B, on 1. 1. 3 prior to the city engineer's
signature of a final plat -- and I would take out the word containing a final plat all
structures not contained on a designated lot shall be removed. So, the word containing
is kind in there twice. Then, under 1. 1. 4 it says: The following should be included in
a revised landscape plan prior to final plat. The next five items, items 1. 1. 5 through
1. 1. 9, are, actually, the sub bullets for that sentence. If that makes sense. And, then,
on the next page, item 1. 1. 14, maintenance of all common areas shall be the
responsibility -- it says Bellingham, but it should be of the Hollybrook Park homeowners
association. Those are just minor typos. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions or
comments?
Borup: I just remembered where I read the three lane. It was in this report a month
ago.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that we are not signaling to ACHD that
we have any comfort with a three-lane road.
Borup: Yeah. I was surprised at that at the time.
Zaremba: It should be five lane. And through Steve Siddoway and the Meridian
Transportation Task Force, I think we will take a look at that and make sure it is five
lane. Okay. We are ready, then, for the applicant, I believe.
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd
Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the developer of the Hollybrook Subdivision. I
want to thank staff for their report and presentation. They are correct, this is a strange
shaped piece of property to try to coordinate with three existing subdivisions and stub
streets and try to come up with a development pattern that kind of meets every --
everyone's needs and wants. Our main reason that, obviously, for the several delays to
get to this point was working with the highway district on the connection to Ustick Road
and when we started out that process, it was mainly at the request of the folks within the
Weaver Subdivision off of Curt Lane, because if we did not get that connection out to
Ustick Road, our traffic was going to be forced to go to Curt Lane, which was a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 17 of 57
substandard -- it was public -- a public road, but it was a substandard public road. We
tried to work with the neighbors and, ultimately, they got the highway district to reason
that this was a proper connection, it does line up with the street across Ustick Road.
And, then, after going through that process, some more -- some more comments came
up through staff and everything and we ended up redesigning some more of the
subdivision to help the connections to Sundance and to Heritage and that's why we had
some of those islands come into play. We also have agreed to do a detached sidewalk
along this main road connecting Heritage with Sundance. Heritage does have detached
sidewalks and Sundance does not, so we will transition at this point -- I think this is it.
Up there in the northwest corner of the subdivision. With regards to the development
itself, this is a planned unit development. We are asking for an R-8 zone, but this is
consistent with how Heritage Commons and Sundance was developed and approved by
the city, with a compatible density. But the main focus is the smaller patio home lots in
the center of the subdivision. And trying to make those fit with that -- with that roadway
and I think we have done a good job. We did lose a couple lots by redesigning this. I
think we have definitely choked this down a number of places and provided islands that
should help slow down traffic going north and south. To answer staff's question, we do
have the six percent open space in the new design and she has that as a condition of
approval that we resubmit that revised landscape plan and we will do that. To address
the ACHD question or to confirm that, Ustick Road is proposed as a five lane -- future
five-lane roadway and we are dedicating that 40 feet and they are receptive of that. So,
that's all I have right now. I'll wait in rebuttal and probably address some of the
neighbor's questions and concerns and I'll stand for any questions you have right now.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? You mentioned that you have
talked to some of the neighbors. Did you actually hold a neighborhood meeting?
Nickel: Yes, we did.
Zaremba: Okay. Hold it down.
Nickel: Yeah. We did. We had a neighborhood meeting in this building right here and I
-- it was a long time ago, maybe some of them forgot, but I don't think Commissioner
Rohm would forgive me if I didn't have a neighborhood meeting on my development.
So, we did. And, then, additionally, I met with some of the neighbors off of Curt when
we were going in front of ACHD, so we have had a couple of chances to meet with
some of the neighbors, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions?
Moe: Not right now.
Zaremba: All right. thank you. We will go through our list of people signed up. One
thing I failed to mention when I was talking about procedure. If there is a spokesman for
a group of you -- and an example of that would be the president of a homeowners
association, we do allow that person ten minutes, under the assumption that the rest of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 18 of 57
the people are giving their time to that person. So, if you have somebody who is a
spokesman, we allow ten minutes for that. Let me ask first is there anybody who is a
spokesman for the group. Sir, if you would come forward. Start with your name and
address, please.
Putnam: My name is Hal Putnam. I live at 3452 Curt Drive. Commissioner Zaremba,
appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Oh.
Mae: I guess I -- one thing I would like to know is who is he representing in the
audience, so that we can --
Zaremba: For those that are here, would you raise your hand for just a moment,
please. Quite a few. Okay. Even if you have signed up, I will call your name and if you
will just say that Mr. Putnam has spoke for you, we will appreciate that.
Putnam: I have been chosen to be the primary--
Zaremba: You have been chosen and we appreciate that.
Putnam: Chosen to speak for the residents of Weaver Acres, which is -- bring up the
slide -- one back. Weaver Acres area. This is a subdivision that has been in existence
since the mid 70s. Most of the people that live in this subdivision have been there on
an average of 20 to 30 years and they are all one-acre lots. We have some real
concerns with this development and I'm going to go through some of them and hope
that I can touch on all of them. We presented our argument with ACHD approximately
three weeks ago, four weeks ago, in regards to the traffic concerns with the original
development where it was going to connect at Washaki and come down to just before
Ustick and cut to Curt Drive and there was maybe a misleading intentional-unintentional
count that was given to -- a trip count that was given to Ada County Highway District
that totally underrepresented the total count that would be using this road. When we
made our presentation to Ada County Highway District, they agreed with us. They did
agree that the -- there would be a substantial amount of traffic on that road that would
run from Washaki out to Ustick Road. We estimate at best or at minimum there will be
1,500 -- 14 to 15 hundred trips per day. With that understanding, Ada County Highway
District requested that -- that the road have sidewalks on both sides, have some
calmers, that it did connect directly to Ustick. I thought somebody said something to
me. That it did have some calmers. It was our understanding that those calmers would
be in the form of islands and not where the curvature took place, which was in the
original plan that was presented to ACHD. Not the original plan, but the revised plan,
those curves at the end of Hollybrook Road were already there. The speed calmers
have been placed within those curves. They will not, in our opinion, slow the traffic
down on a stretch of road -- straight stretch of road that's going to be approximately 900
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 19 of 57
feet long, with the amount of traffic we feel that that will be a hazard, not only to those
people who are living along that road, but anybody that travels and kids that may play in
the area. There is one major -- two major bus stops right on Ustick Road very close to
these areas. And you look at this development and look where Washaki comes in both
from Sundance and Heritage, where that connection is going to make, you will have all
the homes within the new development that will utilize that road, plus -- and one of the
neighbors -- or one of our neighbors from Sundance and Heritage will also confirm that
they will use that road. So, you're looking at all the homes that kind of surround that
new development. When you look at the number of turns they have to make out --
make to get out to Locust Grove or out to Meridian Road, they are going to take that
straight shot to Ustick and some of our neighbors from those other subdivisions will
confirm that that's what they plan on doing if this development goes through like that.
We don't feel that the pinchers -- or this week was the first time we have seen that
speed calming issue in the form of pinchers, but that's really not going to slow the traffic,
that's just going to make it harder for somebody to park on the street right there. Kind of
gather my notes here. When the Sundance Subdivision went in and the Heritage
Subdivision went in and were zoned at R-8, there was sufficient buffer between the R-1
zoning that our subdivision has and those subdivisions, because it was blank or bare
land. We oppose this development being zoned as R-8. We feel that it is in
contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan and to the current codes and even the staff
has recommended that these lots be smaller than are required. We don't feel that that
provides enough buffer between an existing well-established R-1 zone area to go
straight to an R-8 zoning. At a minimum we would request that that be zoned as R-4.
That will alleviate some of the traffic and will create a buffer and proper transition
between urban areas or zoning and development. I guess, in conclusion, we'd just like
to say that we do -- in Weaver Acres we do oppose this development being zoned as R-
8 for the reasons that I just mentioned. It is being requested by the developer that they
even get to sidestep some of the required dimensions to allow them to put those homes
-- very small lots along the back of those acres. There is nobody that lives on those
acres at this point that has made any indication that they plan on developing or selling a
portion of that land in the future for future development. We have been there a long
time, we like those acres, and, as I indicated, most of the average resident has lived
there 20 to 30 years, as I'm sure some of them will testify to. We do realize that we
can't stop development. We do request that it be done in a smooth transition and kind
of going along with what the lady said from EI Gato that because we are long time
residents this has been a little tough for us to handle sometimes. We are coping, but
we aren't ready for transitional small homes to be built right up against our one-acre
lots. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Putnam, you did not indicate on this speed control
what were you -- do you have an alternative idea?
Putnam: It's our belief that it was Ada County Highway -- the ACHD's desire that those
islands be placed along those -- that road -- that straight stretch of road, not at the end.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 20 of 57
When the presentation was made they were talking about approximately 800 to 1,000
feet of road that was a straight shot and we are still dealing with 900 feet that's a
straight shot and pinchers are going to do nothing more than prohibit parking cars there.
It's not going to slow traffic down. It's still a straight shot. Those islands that you're
looking at on that development are at the end of the road.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Putnam: It's not going to slow traffic down once they hit that straight shot and that was
the concern that ACHD had. We have not gotten back together as a group of neighbors
to determine whether we want to re-address this with ACHD and find out exactly what
the minutes were said, because our understanding, particularly Committee Member
Bivens, he didn't want speed bumps and speed calmers that wouldn't slow the traffic
down in that stretch. So, we feel that maybe his staff has misrepresented -- or the staff
misrepresented what they were trying to get at in slowing that traffic down. Because
there will be a lot of traffic there.
Newton-Huckabay: No, I don't disagree. But I can see that moving the land -- the
islands on the ends -- maybe an island in the middle, jog off or something. They call
that a traffic bump out?
Zaremba: Either a bulb out or --
Newton-Huckabay: Bulb out?
Zaremba: Yeah.
Putnam: And that's what we thought their intent was, was that it would -- and, in fact,
they actually indicated a minimum of two in that stretch of road. That was our
understanding. Not at the end of those roads. Because the curves are going to slow
traffic down.
Zaremba: The curves should be -- serve as a calming effect.
Putnam: You don't see bump outs or islands to slow the traffic down where the curves
are at. And this was the plan -- or I should say the plan minus the islands was the one
that was presented to ACHD, minus the islands and the pinchers.
Newton-Huckabay: On the west side -- or this --
Putnam: With the road on the east land -- on the east side. Yes. That's what they were
looking at. They were looking at the curve coming in on Washaki, the curve coming in
off of Ustick, with the road running up the west side -- or, excuse me, the east side, and
it being a straight shot with no islands or pinchers. So, we have two major concerns.
Again, to bring my -- come to a conclusion here. We have a real concern with the traffic
and we have a real concern with the proper zoning, creating a gradual transition from R-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 21 of 57
1 to R-8 -- from R-1 to R-4 to R-8. As you can see on -- just to the east of us, we still
have RUT. Those are five-acre lots and to the east of that are four lots. So, I'll stand for
any other questions.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
Putnam: Thank you, Commissioner, Members of the Commission.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of staff real quick?
Zaremba: This is a good time.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a picture of this kind of overlay with the development
around it? The lot? We don't always -- occasionally we have had that. This proposed -
Canning: Oh, how this fits in there? No, we don't.
Newton-Huckabay: Could you go back to the one you were just on? I can if Craig does
it. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. What approximately -- just because this leaves me the
ability to look at this and guess -- would you say these size lots or these are here? Are
those about--
Canning: Well, the current proposal has one, two, three -- the same number of lots
there and those are between seven and ten thousand square feet. So, I'm guessing
that those up here are around 8,000 square feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Eight thousand square feet. Okay.
Borup: Probably closer to seven.
Newton-Huckabay: Seven.
Canning: Trying to catch the eye of the developer, but he's sitting in his easy chair. In
Quenzer Commons those lots are around 8,000 square feet? Yeah. We got an
affirmative nod. And, then, the ones on here you can see that they are in depth --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Canning: -- but they look to be about the same on average. These might be closer to
nine or ten thousand. About 60 by 120 is our guess.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 22 of 57
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. When I mentioned spokesman, I thought I saw some
people, in addition to Mr. Putnam, light up. Are there spokesmen for the other
subdivisions around? I will call every name on the list, but if there is somebody that's
being a spokesman for a different group -- if you'd identify yourself and, then, we will
ask who you are speaking for.
Kosloski: Be glad to. My name is Joseph Kosloski and I live on 480 East Moskey in
Sundance Subdivision and I guess I represent my Sundance --
Zaremba: Could we see a show of hands of people for whom he is speaking? Thank
you. Okay.
Kosloski: I'd like to, first of all, just put my vote in favor of the things that Mr. Putnam
has already shared, in that we do feel the same -- the same as he does. My biggest
concern -- and our biggest concern -- most of us in the Sundance Subdivision have
young children where it's kind of a -- more of a starter community and what's going to
happen here is -- and, really, our concerns aren't with the wider sections of land, you
know, those are adequate and there is going to be adequate streets for the
development on the south and on the north. But the concern, really, is with that narrow
stretch of land right there. I live kind of in the north -- well, my backyard will be the
second lot from the north of there.
Mae: You have a pointer there.
Kosloski: Oh, I do. Okay. If I can figure out how to make it work. This is where I live
right here and I can tell you that all the people that I live around on this side of the street
and, really, all the way to here are going to be using this street. The way it is right now,
I come out here to Ustick Road and take Eagle to get into Boise to go to work and I see
the same cars, I see the same cars coming home. I guarantee that I'm going to use that
straight stretch of road and I consider myself a good driver and I know I'm going to
speed on that straightaway and I guarantee that most people are. And so my -- really,
my concern is that -- and that's what was presented. I went to the Ada County meeting
as well and the safety issues were the biggest concern that was discussed. The islands
were discussed and, like Mr. Putnam, it was my understanding, at least from sitting
there and participating, that those islands were going to be for the straight stretch of
road and not in the middle of the curve, because, like you said, the curve is already
somewhat of a traffic calming measure in itself. So, I believe that by adding those
islands in the straight stretch you're going to make a safer road. Another thing that --
going along with safety is the amount of kids. It's not just drivers like me that are going
to use this straight stretch to get out to the highway, but it's going to be our kids and it's
going to be kids on bikes and it's going to be kids walking and they -- well, the amenities
that they mention was this -- they will hook it up here, so not only do we have my kids
and these guys' kids and all these kids, but he's opened the way for the kids right here
to have a straight access down to this road and I really think that because there is going
to be so much foot traffic that's going to take this, not to mention the 1,400 cars or so
that we added up, you just got to make this a safe road. And it's a -- roughly a quarter
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 23 of 57
mile straight. I just think that the islands would be a good ~- a good start. Another thing
would be to really just enforce the development regulations that are already on the
books and what that will do is kind of force the developer to make that what it really is
going to be and that's access into a subdivision. Then you could have plenty of road for
a nice wide road. You have room for sidewalks on both sides, landscaping on both
sides, I just think that would be -- that would be the kind of safety measure that most
people would be happy with and that road would end up being suitable for the county
use that it's really going to become and that's the way that we -- that's what we have
discussed. Look at my notes here. I'd just like to see that -- you know, the safety
issues be brought forth. Because what's going to happen is if they are not addressed
now, you're going to have a problem in the future where you're going to have houses
with about 15 feet of driveway backing onto a narrow road that's already going to have a
lot of traffic on it and it's just going to be a mess. And that, in itself, is going push down
those property values there. You're going to have people moving out, because it's such
a pain to get out of their house and, then, you know, nobody's going to buy those places
after that. But that's our concerns there and I'd sit for any questions that anybody has.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Kosloski -- I tried to spell it here, but I --
Kosloski: That will throw you off.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think that's probably what I did. So, are you -- you're
suggesting, then, that you think they should lose all those lots on that road?
Kosloski: I think that just -- you enforce the development regulations that are on the
book and that's what they will have to do, because, then -- I don't know if you have
looked at other main entrances into subdivisions, I know particularly the one coming into
Sundance right there on Ustick -- right here. And there is another one coming into
Sundance off of Meridian Road and you're dealing with a very wide road. I don't know
how wide it is, but there is an island in the middle on both sides. There is a lot of
landscape and it's a nice entryway into a subdivision that has a lot of traffic. And this
right here is really going to serve the same function. It's going to be the main access for
-- like we discussed. All the people that already live here, as well as everybody that's
going to come in off of Washaki. You got the people in Heritage Commons here that
don't want to make a million turns to get out to Locust Grove. You have got the people
in Sundance that feel the same way. And not to mention, like I say, the kids. It's just
going to be a -- it's going to be a busy street and I think we should be wise now and plan
for it accordingly. You know, one thing that -- I understand the way that, you know,
development works and we have to try to accommodate the best use for the land, but,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 24 of 57
you know, variances are set up, really, to kind of bring some common sense into
development and the right to enforce the regulations if they are not. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask if we have any other spokesmen? Okay. I don't see
anybody moving, so let me call the list and if you have not been spoken for, please,
come forward. If you have and agree with what's been said, I'd appreciate if you would
just make that comment. Dana Colstad.
Colstad: Dana Colstad, 3540 North Curt Drive, and I agree with what Hal Putnam has
stated.
Zaremba: Thank you. Dennis Bingaman.
Bingaman: Dennis Bingaman. 3387 North Curt Drive and I agree with what Hal
Putnam has said.
Zaremba: Thank you. Dana Bingaman.
Newton-Huckabay: Do they all need to come up or can they agree from the audience?
D. Bingaman: Dana Bingaman and I agree also with what the gentlemen have said.
I'm on 3387 North Curt. And I have a couple things to add, though. Or a couple
concerns. With the road that's going into North Curt Drive, I would oppose that road
going into that neighborhood. I live within Weaver Acres and I have children -- we
haven't been there 20 years, but I have been there for over ten years, so I'm one of the
newer people in the neighborhood. But our children are in there and we don't have
good lighting in there, we are not a -- we are not like the newer subdivision with the
street lights within that neighborhood and if people don't make the right turn when they
come in and they are in our neighborhood in the evening or even during the daytime, I
have children running around -- it's a great neighborhood, we really love our
neighborhood, we love the privacy of it, and we love that it's a safe place. And I think
that would take away the safety of it with a road entering into our subdivision. One
other thing, just kind of thinking outside the box here for a minute. With a lot of the
concerns with that road, that straight road going there, one suggestion I'm thinking is
could you make a common area in the middle of that road, so that the road doesn't go
all the way through. You have a road that goes up through it without housing and
houses up above, but a common area that stops any traffic that goes all the way
through. Just a crazy thought. Maybe like a cul-de-sac, kind of. I believe there is some
common areas within that plan, isn't there? I'm saying a common area that wouldn't
make a road go all the way through there. It would stop that.
Borup: Well, it wouldn't need to be a common area, it would just be a cul-de-sac with
houses there. The houses there would stop the road from going through.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 25 of 57
D. Bingaman: That would be good, too. But I totally disagree with the road coming into
my subdivision. I don't see the purpose of that. If someone could explain the purpose
of that, I would really appreciate it, the need for that road.
Zaremba: We will ask the applicant. I'm sure it's a hold over from when they did not
think they would have a direct connection to Ustick, so that's a good question to ask.
D. Bingaman: So, with the direct road, does that road need to be there?
Zaremba: We will ask that question of the applicant.
D. Bingaman: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mary Westby. You're welcome to just raise your hand at your
seat and say that you have been spoken for. You don't necessarily have to come all the
way up.
Westby: I should have thought of that. Mary Westby, 3373 Curt and I agree with Hal
Putnam and with what Dana also said.
Zaremba Great. Thank you. Okay. Venicia Morrison. Okay. She is agreeing with the
previous spokesman. Joann Sizmick? Is that right? It's -- I know it starts with an S.
I'm not sure what follows it. It apparently ends with a K. Okay. She is in agreement
with what's been said. Thank you. You actually -- if you're just responding by raising
your hand, you don't actually need to give your address and everything. If you do have
something to add, then, I do ask that you come up to the microphone. But just -- just
kind of wave at me if you don't need to add anything. Christy Bollingberg.
Bollingberg: Christy Bollingberg, 3602 North Weston Way. I'm in the Sundance
Subdivision. And I guess the only thing that I wanted to add or disagree with is that if
there was a neighborhood meeting that took place, I did not receive notification and I
don't believe anybody in our subdivision did receive notification. And I also did not
receive the second notification that this meeting had been scheduled for this evening. I
would have not known about it, if my neighbors had not informed me of it, and I just
wanted to reiterate that I am concerned about the addition of the traffic that will be
added by opening up the road into our subdivision.
Zaremba: Thank you. And, then, you will all have to forgive me, I believe it's Alisa -- is
it Neilgard? Something similar to that? When we get to the end, if I have failed to call
your name and you think you signed up, I will ask you again.
Neberhîtch: Is it Allison Neberhitch?
Zaremba: It could very well be. Allison Neberhitch.
Moe: You were close.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 26 of 57
Zaremba: Do you have anything to add?
Neberhitch: No.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. She's agreeing with what's been said. Kathie Sherna.
Shayna. Okay. She agrees with what's been said. Letha Quinn. Agreeing with what's
been said. Okay. I've got to catch up here for a minute. Joe -- first name is Joe and
the last name starts with an L. Probably -- okay. He's supporting what's been said.
Okay. It could be Ed -- I can't read the last -- the rest of it. It looks like a short name,
three or four letters. Does that apply to anybody? Okay. I'm not identifying who that is.
Mary Jane Amey. She's agreeing with what's been said. Okay. Richard -- it could be
Whitesell or Woodside. Weedenhaf. Richard Weedenhaf. If you would come to the
microphone if you have anything to add, please.
Weedenhaf: Richard Weedenhaf. I live at 3479 North Curt. And I agree with both
gentlemen. My concerns are that back section with the density of the housing and how
important it is to keep perspective on how wide that street should be and I have
measured back there and it seems to me from their fence to my fence there is 125 feet.
You would be pushing that. And for a wide enough road and the footage for the
housing, I'm not sure how that can be done. And for safety sake and for the future of
the Ustick widening, I think it would be better to tone down the density of the housing
back there and do some landscaping, make it a nice area and for the kids and
everything. And as far as that Curt Drive cut in right there, all these kids go down to the
bus in the morning and that coming out, I know darn well that people don't look both
ways half the time, they look to the left, and they just turn and those kids are coming,
you know, back home or something, we are really concerned about that and --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Weedenhaf: That pretty well covers it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Flo Whittaker. She's agreeing with what's been said.
Okay. Tony Peyer -- or it might be Perk. Okay. Agreeing with what's been said. And
Jody Perk. Agreeing with what's been said. Michael B. Morrison.
Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. The last time I stood before this
board it was in regards to AZ 05-012 and four, which happen to be here tonight also. At
that time you told the developer to go back and redo it, because of the interface
between existing neighborhoods and developments. That's all we are asking for now.
Mr. Zaremba -- I'm sorry with your last name.
Zaremba: Zaremba.
Morrison: Mr. Zaremba has made a comment, one of the goals of Planning and Zoning
and one of your jobs was to have the least amount of impact on existing neighborhoods.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 27 of 57
I do appreciate that comment, because it does apply tonight. Okay. If the developer
had made these changes willingly and stuff, it wouldn't have been such of an issue. In
talking with us nothing much happened. Ada County Highway told them to go back and
make these changes. It wasn't willingly. They tried to push it through without it. I had
also attended those meetings. Okay. If the developer had come in and taken that
narrow strip and made a play area and stuff for the kids, safety wouldn't be an issue,
housing wouldn't be an issue. The request for small lot sizes wouldn't be an issue,
because they would have play areas, much safer for kids, okay? One of the
Commission's comments and stuff at the previous ordinances that they were trying to
get through, was not to create further issues. Okay. With the straight stretch down
there, everyone said they are going to use them, okay? I see no reason to make the lot
sizes smaller. I have multiple rental properties, okay? One of the things I look for is
safety and lot size. Why would I want to buy a small house on a busy street, they are
going to turn into rentals, property value will go down, I think that is one of the main
concerns of the people on -- in Sundance and stuff is the transients coming in and out.
The property values go down. Why would you want to buy a house and your property
values go down. Okay? I don't think the developer has done a good job. Most of the
information that we get has been less than stand up as far as I'm concerned. Every
time we come to one of these meetings something is said and it's like that's not what we
were told, that's not what we understood. Okay. I think that pretty much covers it. Do
you have any question?
Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Morrison: Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Jan Brockdale? Brockett. That could very well be it. Yes. Thank you.
Brockett: My name is Jan Brockett and I live at 3425 Curt Drive and I'm one of the lots
that backs up to that road. I'm the one, two, three -- third long narrow lot there. It backs
right up to that narrow strip. Okay. I have lived there for 30 years. It's been open and
farmland and I'm not against development, I'm not against our neighbor selling that
piece of property and getting their retirement from it. I'm not. But there are too many --
there is too much trying to be crammed into that one little strip. I have lived in that little -
- I have lived in this area, I know how big that strip is. With all those homes bordering
that long narrow strip, it's going to be nothing but a mess. How are those people going
to get out of their driveways? They are going to back out. And where are they going to
back out to? Right in the middle of that street. So, there is traffic and, if I'm wrong, I
think there was 15 or 16 homes backing out into that street. It's just not going to work.
There is too much being put into such a small space. That's alii have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Kelly Beeman.
Beeman: Kelly Beeman. I live at 3724 North Legacy Woods Avenue and -- go back.
It's right -- that lot right there. Our concern -- and I don't speak for a group. Our
concern is the entrance to this subdivision from Washaki. And we have got a further
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 28 of 57
concern, which is a long-term issue, I will guarantee you my wife and I will -- rather than
turning left on Washaki and going out onto Locust -- North Locust Grove, will turn right
on Washaki, go straight down through this, and onto Ustick Road. Again, I don't know
exactly what the size of that small strip is, but it certainly appears to be questionable. I
have never been aware of a neighborhood meeting. And the only reason I came tonight
was a great big red and white sign put at the end of the road right now, which is blocked
right here, and it appears to have been put by Ada County Highway District. And so
that's the only reason I came tonight. A longer-term concern in our subdivision is right
now most of the people up here -- is this Sundance? Is that the name of the
subdivision? Okay. Many many residents of Sundance come through Heritage
Commons, turn right on North Locust Grove, and, then, turn left into that. And, then, it
even gets worse. As you go north into Copper Canyon -- Copper Basin, I think as time
goes on that North Locust Grove -- or our street, Heritage Commons, North Heritage
Commons, is going to become very very busy and this only further complicates it,
because of the Washaki connection within -- people from the other subdivisions, rather
than going out, will simply turn left, go through that Washaki -- onto Washaki and
straight down to Ustick. So, for that reason I oppose this proposal. Do you have any
questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much. Okay. That is pretty much
all the names that have signed up. The only one I'm missing, if you signed up and the
first initial of your first name is an E and I didn't call you, you are the name I'm missing.
Is that you, sir? If you have something to add, please, come to the --
Spirk: Yes, I do. And I think it's really -- well, excuse me. Let me, first of all, introduce
myself. I'm Paul Spirk. I live at 3544 Curt Drive.
Zaremba: Would you say your name again, please?
Spirk: Paul Spirk. S-p-i-r-k.
Zaremba: Not the one I'm looking for, but you're welcome to speak.
Spirk: Okay. I -- one of the things I wanted to mention has to do with our restrictive
covenants in Curt Drive and Weaver Acres and the restrictive covenants are on the
records for 40 years. Well, that's 11 years more before they can make any changes
and that affects Weaver Acres, because the fact that they are cutting a road into that
subdivision. So, we need to check on that to see what the restrictive covenants apply to
Weaver Acres in reference to a road cutting into Curt Drive. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. One thing we need to clarify, cities do not enforce restrictive
covenants or CC&Rs, that's a legal issue among the property owners to enforce against
each other and the cities don't take a part of that.
Spirk: Yeah, but you need to be aware of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 29 of 57
Zaremba: We try to be aware of them, but we are not responsible for them. I'd like to
find the person whose first initial is E that hasn't come up. Okay. Let me go on. And
the meeting is open to those who did not sign up as well. And we will now go through
some of those. You do need to identify yourself, please.
Glass: My name is Julie Glass. I live at 3306 North Weston in Sundance. I apologize I
was late, so I didn't sign up. My concern is not only just the road going through, but
those are small small homes. They are asking to reduce the space of the size of the
lots by over 2,000 square feet and they are going to have small driveways and you're
going to have a lot of rentals for sure. Those people are going to park on the street and
that street's already narrower than it's supposed to be. So, if they do what they
propose, you're going to have all kinds of hazards, people parking there, the kids driving
there, too many cars going down the road, as small as it is, the whole thing is just going
to end up being a big mess. Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask -- before I ask for more speakers, let me ask staff--
that narrow section across this middle throat, which is drawing a lot of attention, if I'm
interpreting the preliminary plat correctly, the lot depths are 80 to 81 feet and, then, the
street section is like 36 feet, so we are --
Borup: Forty, I believe.
Zaremba: Forty. So, that whole section is only like 120 feet -- somebody said he paced
it at 125, but it looks like it's a skimpy 125.
Canning: One hundred twenty-one, it would appear.
Zaremba: Something like that. I just wanted to confirm that, because it's been part of
the discussion.
Canning: They have 33 foot back of curb to back of curb and a 40 foot right of way, so
it's 40 plus the 81.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Again, people who didn't sign up, if you have something to
add. sir. Come forward.
Martin: Shawn Martin, 3620 North Weston Way. If you could go back to the preliminary
plat. My concern -- my general concern is streets that are this long, 1,400 foot,
approximately, in length, that connect directly to Ustick Road, normally are residential
collectors with no front-on housing. For instance, you know, the Sundance is on the
one side and Heritage Commons, even Arrow Way on the south side of Ustick has the
same principle with no front-on housing. They have attempted to do what the Ada
County Highway District has told them to do. However, as the gentleman said, you
know, you really don't need the traffic islands on the curves themselves. The intention
was more for along on that straight piece of land or somewhere along there. You can't
really get a good close up of the islands from there, but the first island as you come in it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 30 of 57
really almost forces you into the curve, more so than on that lower right-hand. There is
really no tangency between the end of the island and where the road goes. Really, the
only thing it's going to cause some possible accidents is forcing people into the curve as
they go around there. One of the concerns of the Sundance residents from the
beginning was putting the road next to them. They did put it to the other side.
However, as you see at the end of it they have put it back to the Sundance side for the
last couple of people along Weston, which one of them would still have a road behind
them. The other problems I see are the island on Washaki, the first one coming from
Heritage Commons, you can see the -- people just drive around the island. And the
ACHD report had one traffic calmer for the Heritage Commons side, one for Sundance
side is how it was written. The second one, as you see -- I don't know how that does
anything for the Sundance people. It helps, you know, people who are in Heritage
Commons will come down, they will turn left, they'll go by three islands, and people
turning from Sundance, they have no island to go around, except for one that's come
down just right at the very end of Arrowwood Way. You can't really see it on here
either, but the road does wind back to Washaki at the very tip. The roadway doesn't
have any -- basically, it's coming in at an angle, which will also create some problems
trying to get in and out of there as far seeing really need of about a 30-foot tangency
according to ACHD regulations at the intersection. That's really alii have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to speak? All right.
Thank you. We will ask the applicant to come back up and respond to issues that have
been raised, please.
Nickel: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the neighbors' comments.
ACHD, we did --
Canning: Shawn, hold on for a second
Zaremba: Getting too much feedback from the microphone.
Nickel: Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. We were told by ACHD to provide two to three
calming devices along that stretch -- north-south stretch. We did work with their staff
and came up with those two chokers, in addition to those islands. Islands were,
actually, optional, they gave the opportunity -- the choice whether we wanted to put
those in or not and we chose to put them in just more -- thinking that it was going to be
more of a traffic calming. Obviously, the final design will have to go through ACHD for
approval and if they determine that those islands on the north and south are not safe or
don't meet their policy, we will not be able to build them. But they focused on those two
chokers, which will have landscaping as they choke in. They will have two trees. And
so that was the traffic calming that they approved. We did take that back per their
request. My engineer worked with their staff and that's what they came up with. So, the
highway district has made that decision on that -- on that roadway. And just to clarify,
because I think it's kind of being misunderstood, that is a full 33-foot road section, which
is the same street section that's in most of the subdivisions surrounding this property.
The thing that's been reduced is the right of way. It will still have sidewalk on both sides
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 31 of 57
of that road and it will be a 33 foot wide paved surface. So, we are not reducing the
travel way, we have reduced the right of way within that -- within that strip. Now, the
lots themselves are going to 80 foot in depth, but we are not asking for any reduction in
setbacks through the PD. So, we are still going to have a 15-foot rear, five foot side,
and a 15 foot front yard setback, so --
Borup: Fifteen to the house, 20 to the garage.
Nickel: That is correct.
Borup: So, you have a 20-foot driveway.
Nickel: Fifteen to the living area and 20 to the garage. So, you will not have cars
blocking the sidewalk. ACHD determined that was not to be built -- or necessary as a
collector street. They did insist that that be connected north to south, otherwise, we
would have proposed a cul-de-sac with lots and we wouldn't have connected it through.
Same goes for the Curt access. That's a requirement of ACHD. They want
interconnectivity -- they want interconnectivity to subdivisions. If the folks would like to
go back, I will go back with them and we can try to get that removed. But ACHD is
requiring those connections. So, I tried to help the neighbors go through and get the
access onto Ustick to try to calm some of the traffic on Curt. Apparently I -- apparently
my -- it wasn't appreciated, so that's fine. As far as the speed -- you know, some people
saying they are going to speed down that road, well, that road's going to need to be
connected regardless if those houses are there or not. Again, ACHD is going to require
that connection north and south. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, again, I did
have a neighborhood meeting. I had 21 people show up to this room. I got the list from
the city, so it's the same list that goes out to all the neighbors for this meeting. So, I just
want to confirm that. And, again, the request for reduction in lot sizes is consistent with
what has been approved in the subdivisions -- the three subdivisions that surround it --
that are surrounding this site, which I will also ask for an R-8 with a PD and those did
have the ability -- I know that Heritage Commons did reduce some of their lots within
their -- within their development through that PD process. So, we are not asking for
something that's out of the ordinary. We are providing six percent open space. We do
have a pathway connection into Heritage Commons. I think the real issue is that middle
area and, again, we are reducing the -- we are asking for a 50 foot wide width and the
reduction in the depth to 80 feet and that's still plenty of room to put a full size house
and meet the setbacks. So, that's alii have. I'll stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have some.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 32 of 57
Borup: And I don't know if you could answer this or staff, but I want to explore the idea
of a cul-de-sac on that narrow strip. You said you did talk to ACHD? And is there is
maximum length in their requirements on a road that terminates with a cul-de-sac?
Nickel: Oh, it would be probably a city requirement. A fire department requirement,
more than anything else.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: I'll let Anna address that.
Borup: Two hundred and fifty feet is within --
Canning: I believe our standard is no cul-de-sac can be longer than 450 feet.
Borup: Okay. That would be well within -- like you say, they did pursue that with ACHD
on having a cul-de-sac or--
Nickel: No, we did not address that. But they did say they wanted the interconnectivity.
Borup: Well, I know they always want interconnectivity and I certainly agree with you
there. You know, we are only talking about 56 lots at this point here total.
Nickel: Correct.
Borup: It looks to me like there is enough access with the other roads coming from the
north and the south that a cul-de-sac could be feasible.
Nickel: Again, I would have no problem going back to ACHD and requesting that. We
were told initially they want interconnectivity. So, that would be up to them to make that
determination.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what our report says, that ACHD is -- wants the Curt Drive
connectivity in the report and, then, the connectivity to Ustick, so -- but I have to agree
with you.
Borup: Well, that would seem to certainly answer the majority of the concerns for the
neighbors. You may lose a lot or two, I don't know, but, you know, it would have to be
worked out in the design, but --
Nickel: I'm not as worried about that as much as I am the highway district.
Borup: Your cul-de-sacs go down and probably have two lots backing against each at
the ends and those would be a hundred or more apart.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 33 of 57
Nickel: Right. It does sound like that would -- that would satisfy a lot of the
neighborhoods' concerns if that street didn't go through. I don't know what we want to
propose, because we have already gone through ACHD and they have already made
their decision. I hate to table it again and have to bring everybody back. You know, we
can -- I don't know what you want to propose here.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Can I ask for a second for a view that shows as much of this whole square
mile as possible in orienting where this is in there? What I'm trying to -- okay. That
shows Locust Grove to Meridian. The center point of that mile is about where the word
Ustick Road is. Okay. This to the left of that. That's what I wanted to see, Thank you.
Okay. Commissioners?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes.
Canning: If -- if the applicant were to take it back to ACHD -- I believe this came up, but
the original proposal they didn't want the connection to Ustick, so if the applicant comes
back with a proposal for a cul-de-sac, the likelihood of them approving the connection to
Ustick is pretty small. And I think we have heard a lot of testimony about how they
didn't want traffic coming that way. I just -- I guess I just wanted the Commission to be
aware of that and some of the public, that if those do go to cul-de-sacs, then, some of
that will be coming out onto Curt Drive, more than likely.
Zaremba: ACHD is going to want some trades here and there.
Canning: Right.
Zaremba: If they lose the access to Ustick.
Canning: That's our --
Zaremba: The traffic count would go down considerably if it's cul-de-sacs.
Canning: Right.
Nickel: And there was talk -- Commissioners, there was talk that that would -- that
would be a good location for a future traffic light if the two -- no. The one where we are
Zaremba: You're speaking to east --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 34 of 57
Nickel: No one has promised there is going to be a traffic light there, but they -- there is
a quarter mile section from Locust Grove -- or from Meridian and I guess that's -- but
that's future consideration.
Newton-Huckabay: It would stand to reason for me that down the road that this access
here, Curt Drive, go away and, then, everybody would access here, if there is a light.
Nickel: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: And that -- so, you wouldn't have access onto Ustick Road from
Curt Drive anymore.
Nickel: That was the discussion at some point with someone, I recall.
Rohm: I guess my question, Shawn, would be do you have any kind of traffic calming
alternatives that you would be willing to step forward with that would address the
concerns that we have heard from all the other people in the audience? Do you have
any ideas that might be acceptable to your developers?
Nickel: I don't. Anything -- I think anything short of not connecting this north and south,
which would be a major deterrent.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I -- Mr. Chair? May I make a suggestion?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: My suggestion -- other than I have to tend to agree with
Commissioner Borup that a cul-de-sac -- but, then, again, you do lose what some day is
going to be, you know, a good flow through here. What about putting the islands down
this road, doing some bump outs -- bulb out -- whatever the technical highway term is
for that and maybe you would probably have to lose a couple lots in here, but I think you
would -- that would calm traffic -- I know these -- this is similar to what's over in Cedar
Springs -- is it Cedar Springs that's got the -- at the entrance. Yeah. And you, basically,
have to stop, you know, to get around them, but -- I mean they do slow you way down
there, but maybe some more island type things down the middle.
Nickel: Commissioners, I initially thought the highway district -- that that's what they
were referring to when we did go back, was to do islands and was, actually, surprised
when they decided to go with the choker. So, I guess we could go back and relook at
the possibility of putting the island in the middle that would, you know, act more of a
roundabout, I guess. I mean we don't have room for a real roundabout there, but--
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Nickel: But I think to answer your question, I think that's the only -- probably the only
thing we could do. And I still don't know if that's going to satisfy the neighbors, having
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 35 of 57
that island -- it probably would be better than what we have proposed or what the
highway district has approved, but.-
Zaremba: Just pure logic to me would seem that it would make more sense to have the
islands where the pinchers are and not have the pinchers and probably not have islands
in the curves. That almost strikes me as potentially dangerous. I'm surprised at ACHD
for --
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I guess for the sake of my developer, I guess we need to know
where you're leaning. If you believe that you cannot approve or recommend approval of
this, because of the -- that specific and you would like to make some recommendations
to us, either as a condition or you would like us to bring it back and show, I think that's
probably the proper way to do it. If your intent is to have us put an island or two in
there, I guess that's what we need to -- where we need to head on this. And, then, we
can go back and take a look at that and see if that's possible and if that will even do any
good.
Zaremba: Well, I think we are all understanding the struggle is this narrow strip of land
and what does any developer do with 120 -- or 121 feet. The northern section and the
southern section are pretty typical, but the struggle is this connecting strip in here.
Nickel: And just one further thing, if you do decide to table this for two weeks or
whatever to come back and show you that, maybe in your motion you could also put
that in that time I can go back and address the issue of the cul-de-sacs with the highway
district. Our appeal period is up and so we can't go back and -- to the commissioners,
but we can at least talk to staff and see if they would be supportive of cutting that off. I
already know the answer, but we can do that within that time frame, if that's what you'd
like.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Personally, I would like to see a little common area, like right here and right
here, and just bump the road out and so it's got a little bulge in it, so that you don't have
that straight stretch through that whole area and I don't know that you would lose lots
specifically, but you --
Borup: Sure, you would.
Rohm: And you probably would.
Moe: I guess what I would anticipate is you would lose a few lots and at that point,
then, you are actually enlarging a few others, you know, to make some difference. I
think some of these lots are fairly small. Maybe we could get a little bit of participation
both ways, we get the islands in there and we lose a few lots and make the others a
little larger and try and take care of a couple concerns here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 36 of 57
Nickel: So, if I'm understanding you, more of a -- kind of a snake --
Rohm: Exactly. Because as long as you don't have that straight stretch the entire
length, you're not going to be able to have that speed -- as much of a speed concern.
Nickel: What thing I would again -- and staff would need to examine this, but you would
lose the ability for the frontage on those. Just something to point out for future --
Rohm: It depends on how you position the -- as you see the lot lines running east and
west, you could have a bump out where half of it is on one lot and half of it is on the
other, so you still have a -- where the roadway actually is on the property line for a
portion of each of those lots.
Zaremba: If I'm interpreting the suggestion, there would be three sections where it
pretty well stays where it is and two sections where it's maybe 20 feet away from the
property line, so that there is --
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: We are not talking about moving the whole road, we are talking about
making two -- somebody called them snakes.
Nickel: And this -- obviously, this line right here is permanent, that's where it's going to
have to stay and, then, at that point I guess it could come up here a little more before it
bends over. I don't know. My engineer will have to play with it and see if he can make it
work.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, Mr. Nickel, at this point it's awkward, it's a bad situation, but
that would be the direction I would lean, is I wouldn't -. I would not vote in favor of this
development as it stands today. And my only problem is with that long neck there.
Although, I do feel cutting out Curt would have been a good idea, but I think that
something like a snake or a traffic bulb out is a better --
Nickel: As opposed to have big island in the middle?
Rohm: Right.
Nickel: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: You know, either one of those would -- you know, you're talking
about 400 feet -- was it 900 feet, approximately? A thousand? So, at the 500-foot
mark, about?
Moe: Eight fifty-two.
Newton-Huckabay: Eight fifty-two? So, 426.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 37 of 57
Nickel: Yeah. I don't know if we have the ability to -- even to bulb that out in the middle
and do a one way going around -- one way going the other way or not. I guess you
need to make a decision as to, you know, how you want us to proceed and let us go
back -- either let us go back or --
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: A couple questions. Are you familiar with any of the ACHD studies on which is
most effective on traffic calming? And I know the chokers work from the reports I have
read. I don't know if a circle -- you know, a large bulb out, if it works better than the
chokers, or they are about the same. Staff didn't mention anything on what's most
effective.
Nickel: I wasn't at the last meeting. They are the ones that made that recommendation
for the chokers and it was their commission's instructions to slow down the traffic.
Borup: Right. I know they do that. I mean I read the reports where they do that.
Nickel: Yeah.
Borup: I don't know which one -- which one works better than the other. There might
be somebody in the audience that does.
Moe: Mr, Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I think the applicant's engineer is raising his hand. He may have some comment
to this discussion. Can we have him come up?
Zaremba: Well, let's ask a question. Would you, please, identify yourself.
Erickson: My name is Ross Erickson. I'm the developer's engineer. I'm at 1854 East
Lanark in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can speak towards
kind of how those chokers came about. I met with ACHD development services and
traffic and we looked at different alternatives as far as putting islands in there and the
challenge is getting an efficient shift. In order to calm traffic with an island, you have to
shift, you know, at least probably ten, eleven, twelve feet with each lane to get an
effective measure and they felt that the chokers would be more effective in this
application than trying to put islands in. The challenge is each time you try to swerve
that road out and get -- you know, meet your radius and your tangent design
requirements, you end up eating up -- you probably couldn't even fit two in there
meeting the requirements with the length that we have, as far as trying to get the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 38 of 57
geometry for the roadway. So, their staff, actually, suggested that we put those in and
landscape them with some trees. They said they have been effective in other
developments and we ran with it, we thought that it was a good fit for this project, since
it is such a unique strip along there. There is just not a lot of options in what we can do.
Like Shawn mentioned and ACHD traffic staff felt that, you know, leaving those islands
at the ends would help a little bit, although it wasn't required. We left them in there. We
thought it did offer a little bit more of a circuitous route for the cars, you know, at each
end. I think if you look at the tangent length there between the south end of the top
curve and the north end of the south curve, it's about 870 feet and in that length we do
have two chokers, so if you break that down to, you know, 200 and some feet between
the chokers, so it doesn't really give an opportunity for, you know, vehicles to speed
excessively, although I'm sure people will, as they do down every street. But I think
ACHD staff recognized the conditions and kind of the hindrances of this strip and what
we can do with it and what we can't do with it and they felt that using the chokers would
be the best application for this. They actually preferred the chokers over the island.
Rohm: Possibly an additional choker right in the middle, then?
Erickson: You know, that's something we can look at. You know, if -- the chokers are
easy to adapt on this other development. It's an in-fill project, we are dealing with a
narrow strip, and you try to get a significant curvature in a road, it really limits what you
can do and presents hardship for what you can do for lot layouts, common lots, and
even just the roadway geometry in meeting some of the standards. If we needed to, we
could add, you know, another choker -- we could add two more chokers in there if that--
you know, if the Commission thought that that would enhance the traffic calming on that
strip. The chokers that we show now, like I say, they are common lots, they will be
landscaped and irrigated, so they are not going to be eye sores, they will look nice
and --
Rohm: I think the -- to encapsulate the concerns of the public has been that this stretch
is too long without any calming -- traffic calming device and if you can put additional
chokers in -- if, in fact, chokers work as well as islands, then -- and Ada County
Highway District knows this probably better than we, but if you can put additional
chokers in that will do that traffic calming that will help alleviate some of the concerns of
the public.
Erickson: I think it will. The reason why we went with two is that's what came from the
discussion with ACHD staff. They thought that two would be necessary on this tangent
length of road. So, that's why we ended up with two. And end up with, you know, 200
and some odd feet between them. If needed to add another and reduce that spacing,
we could certainly do that and provide even tangent sections between the chokers
along that stretch. And I don't know if you guys would feel more comfortable with one or
two or --
Newton-Huckabay: How wide is the choker, each one?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 39 of 57
Erickson: There is a 20-foot clear between the faces of the curb, so you have got two
ten foot lanes at the choker locations. That's the fire department requirement for a
minimum width.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the choker is -- each one of them is like six feet wide? If you
reduce it from 33 --
Erickson: Thirty-three, twenty -~ yeah. Six and a half feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Six and a half feet wide.
Zaremba: Review with me a little bit of the discussion that this --- and it was mentioned
by someone from the audience, whether you call this road a collector or not, it really
functions as a collector for not only the northern portion of this development, but the
surrounding developments, and the issue raised is the 17 or 19, I think it is, properties
that will have to back into this street and the point was made that on something we
really call a collector we don't allow driveways onto it and this, to me, seems to qualify
as a collector, even though it's not being called that. Review with me some of the
discussion that ACHD had with you about that.
Erickson: They, actually, just told me what the classification was and as far as their
collector classification, they recognize that there are homes fronting this road and they
didn't take it lightly either, you know, that they did suggest that traffic calming would be
necessary to try to keep trips or cars traveling down the street, the speeds down as
much as they could, and that's why you don't see a lot of collector-type streets with
traffic calming like this on roads. That's the purpose of the calming is to really make an
effort to get the speeds down of the cars coming through there and I think it's an
effective design. I think with the limitations that we have and the sizes and things and
the amount of traffic calming that we are -- that we can provide and, you know, if it
would make the public more comfortable, we could put a couple additional chokers in.
Rohm: I'm not sure that additional chokes is as appropriate as where they are located
and if you were to move one of the chokers north to about here and bring this other
choker down to about here, then, you're splitting the whole --
Erickson: That's where we have them.
Rohm: Oh, there is a choker right there? I was thinking it was right there. With
possibly an additional choker right here.
Erickson: I think if we were to add an additional choker, we would probably want to
push it north and south and distribute the tangents evenly. I think that's the point that
you're trying to make.
Rohm: The point is you don't want to give a long stretch that the traffic can speed up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 40 of 57
Erickson: Right. Right.
Borup: Can you discuss any conversation you had with ACHD on the double cul-de-
sac? Was that even discussed with them or they said they wanted a through street and
it was dropped?
Erickson: Yeah. Commissioner Borup, from the word go with our predevelopment
meeting it was a through street requirement. So, that's kind of what we based -- I think
this is about the sixth rendition of this project and this is what we have ended up with
after a lot of meetings and a lot of planning and --
Borup: So, it sounds like it really wasn't discussed to try to be pushed, then?
Erickson: It wasn't pushed.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I think I would still like to see something in the center, some kind of
a knuckle of some sort. I mean I hate to do one --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you.
Newton-Huckabay: Some kind of an island in the middle of the -- that dissects that --
that 850 feet and, then, move the pinchers off north and south. I mean you could put
one --
Zaremba: Are you suggesting one island in the middle and the pinchers shift a little bit?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: Is that what you are --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Or -- yeah. And take out -- you know, lose three -- take
three lots out and make -- you know, and, then, you get some bigger lots, because--
Zaremba: They'd still be 80 feet deep, but some of them would be 90 wide, instead of
55 wide or --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: Seventy-five wide, something like that.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. And I think the -- that would be the most likely to flow with
the north and south development and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 41 of 57
Rohm: Can you accommodate an island and still be able to split three lots into two and
be able to meet your radius that you're talking from a -- the curvature of the road?
Erickson: Commissioner Rohm, I think it's going to be more than -- you know, each of
those lots -- I believe they show up as 50 or 55 feet wide.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Erickson: They are probably going to talk about four or five lots in order give a
significant shift in the road. But that's why we steered away from islands in this narrow
stretch and the reason why is to have an effective island you need to have a major shift
in the road for traffic to actually have to look, turn, and turn around the island, or go
through a long curve. And that's why ACHD staff, they suggested not to do islands,
they suggested to do these chokers instead.
Borup: Can you do the same radius as you do -- as they do on the roundabouts?
Erickson: I guess you could. Roundabout radiuses are significantly larger than an
island.
Borup: Are they?
Erickson: Yeah.
Borup: They didn't seem much more than through an intersection. A little bit more, but
not that much more it didn't seem like.
Erickson: Yeah. It would be tough to fit the roundabout in that --
Borup: Okay. I thought maybe the roundabout radius might be smaller.
Erickson: No. Huh-uh.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my original comment --
Borup: I don't mean a roundabout, I mean just the radius on a bulb out.
Newton-Huckabay: As it's designed today, I, myself, will be -- not vote to recommend
approval to the City Council. So, irregardless of whether an island is a good idea
according to ACHD -- you know, I don't like the way it looks, I think the homeowners
have good points. I'm not so against the idea of putting a parkway through there and --
you know, because like Chairman Zaremba said, it acts like a collector street, whether
you want it to be a collector street or not, you know, it's going to be a collector street of
some sort and so I think that it's going to warrant maybe a little bit of extraordinary effort
to make it, you know, a slow collector street and my -- without some change like that or
recommended change like that, I will -- I will not vote to approve it to City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 42 of 57
Erickson: To make sure I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Huckabay,
you'd like to see an island in the center of that stretch.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be my -- and, then, move the two pinchers down, would
be I think -- you're the engineer, I'm the Planning and Zoning Commissioner, but
something like that. And, yes, you may have to lose some lots, but it's going to increase
the lot size, it's going to increase the lot value, so I mean at the end of the day I think it
could all work. That's what I'm saying. And end of comment.
Zaremba: And along that same line, just to consider this, if -- the way I'm reading it,
there are 18 building lots --
Erickson: There are 14.
Borup: -- the one at the north end is pretty sizable, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Those are common lots one, one in each --
Erickson: There are 14 along that--
Zaremba: Okay. So, we have -- that makes sense. It says common lot right next to
them. Sorry about that. So, 16 building lots?
Erickson: I believe there is 14.
Zaremba: Fourteen. And I agree that that -- even with the pinchers, that long stretch
and cars backing out there, it's terribly uncomfortable not to have some variation in it
somewhere and I think along the lines of what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, is
about the center of it to either -- the difficulty with an island, it doesn't do anything for the
northbound lanes. Put an island in, the northbound lanes stay where they are.
Borup: That's if the straightaway --
Zaremba: -- so the lane shift. So, I -- my feeling is there needs to be a 20 foot shift in
the road right in the middle and widen a few of the building lots and maybe end up
instead of having 16 of them, there is 13 of them, but they are wider and that one spot
the road actually shifts and I realize you can't shift the road in two feet, it's going to take
the space of maybe three of these lots, but if they are making -- if we are making them
wider, it still leaves people backing out into the street, but if you calm it considerably, to
me -- and my instinct is we would not be doing the right thing for Meridian to approve it
as is, unfortunately. And our suggestions again -- well, let me get a consensus. If most
of us are comfortable with the north end and the south end, ACHD has said the cross-
road at the south end has to connect and I think that will, eventually, be an advantage to
the people outside of this subdivision as well, but our main concern is this difficult
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 43 of 57
stretch through the middle that's 121 feet wide. I see heads nodding, so we are all
focusing on the same area, otherwise, the other parts of it can be pretty typical.
Rohm: And I guess along those lines, if, in fact, you put the - if you put a swerve in the
road in the middle of that section, it almost eliminates the need for the chokers and you
can't -- over 300 feet, you're not going to get those higher speeds, so maybe that's kind
of the compromise going the other direction is that you put the -- change the road's
location and lose some lots and the chokers, I personally - I think the chokers are a
traffic hazard myself. And so to change the location of the road might be a better
answer from everybody's perspective.
Zaremba: And just off the top of your head, if - what did we say, the whole length of
this was 850 feet, something like --
Erickson: Yeah. A little more, but - 70,80 feet--
Zaremba: If we said the roadway had to shift, you wouldn't want it to shift, so that the
southbound lane ended up being where the northbound lane is. If you're going to shift it
at all, you need to shift it at least 25 feet.
Erickson: You actually look at the lane shift. It depends, you know, if we put an island
in or if we don't, if we actually add some curvature to the road. I think it sounds like the
goal here is traffic calming and with that the curvature of the road would accomplish
that.
Zaremba: So, that - if the center of that curvature was at 420 feet up, how long does it
take you to get from the property line as drawn into that curvature?
Erickson: You're talking about lineal footage?
Zaremba: Tell me the curve from when you begin the curve to when you get to the
maximum -
Erickson: Shift?
Zaremba: -- displacement. Shift. Shift in the curb, how long does that need to be?
Erickson: It's really a function of how you shift. If we shift like say 11 feet or 12 feet or
until we do half the roadway, we do 16 and a half feet, we can look at -- I can talk to
ACHD staff and see what kind of a shift they will allow us to do and see if there is
something we can work out with them with their staff to get the shift as compressed as
we can, but yet still be effective to have a curve in the road.
Zaremba: I guess what I'm getting at is some kind of a - if we are going to bother to
make a suggestion at all, are we going to have a 300 foot straight of way and, then, 200
foot involved in this shift and, then, another 300 feet, is that -
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 44 of 57
Erickson: I'm just going to say it's going to take a couple hundred feet to do it. Probably
200 feet or 300 feet.
Zaremba: That works for me. That would mean there would be a couple lots there that
may end up not being build-able, but--
Erickson: Probably about six.
Zaremba: Nice landscaping would be a good addition. Is this the kind of -- would we
like to see something like that? Is that what we are talking about or are we even close
to --
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Okay. Mrs. Canning.
Canning: I'm sorry. You seem to be going a direction that worries me a little bit, in that I
think although -- I think Commissioner Borup pointed out that chokers are probably
more effective than a landscape island here. Part of that reason is that once you put a
landscape island in, you've got to get 20 feet for the fire department on either side. So,
you actually have a wider travel way that allows you to go faster. It seems
counter-intuitive, but, actually, putting the landscape islands in allows more room for
people to go -- the more room you give them, the faster they will go. If you suggest
changes that effectively eliminate the ability to have lots on this area, which I know the
neighbors are in favor, but those houses actually will decrease speeds. So, if you
effectively remove all the lots here by making them un-buildable, then, people will drive
faster along here, because there is no houses to worry about. There is driveways. It
would seem to me that the Commission could maybe just leave a little more flexibility in
their directions to the applicant to maybe work up a couple more schemes and bring
them back to you for further consideration, rather than trying to design it tonight,
because I think that once pencil is put to paper that we will find that some of these don't
work very good and there may be some other options. And that's all I was hoping I
could communicate.
Zaremba: Thank you for that, that is --
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I have the same feeling on the island. I think a peninsula or, you know, a large
bulb out on one side, otherwise, you have just opened up more traffic area. I do have
another -- and this may be a little -- a little irregular and I don't know how much weight it
will carry with ACHD, but I would be interested in maybe just a quick show of hands
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 45 of 57
from the audience if they would prefer a cul-de-sac and not have a through street, or
this large island or bulb out calming device. Just one or other. There are two choices.
Zaremba: I would be willing to ask that and let me phrase it this way: If that long
stretch was to be opposing cul-de-sacs, then, we assume the direct access to Ustick
goes away and they are going to use Curt as the entrance to the southern cul-de-sac.
Borup: It sounds like that's what ACHD is saying.
Zaremba: And with that is there a show of hands that anybody feels that's what they'd
like to see? I see not a single hand raised and see some --
Borup: The question was the double cul-de-sac; there is nobody in favor of that?
Zaremba: I'm sorry; we can't have discussion from the audience.
Newton-Huckabay: ACHD's statement is that access to Ustick would go to Curt if there
was no straight through. So, that is the only option.
Borup: I think we need to have both subdivisions vote separately.
Zaremba: So, we don't have support for the cul-de-sacs given the change.
Borup: So what's this vote on? I just didn't hear what your vote was -- what are you
asking for?
Zaremba: What I asked is assuming that the access to Ustick would go away and Curt
would be used, was there support for the two cul-de-sacs and I saw heads shaking no
and no hands raised. A couple of hands.
Borup: Four for the cul-de-sac.
Zaremba: Well, then, my suggestion would be -- it sounds like the consensus of the
Commission is that we ask for maybe two or three optional treatments for this or
reasons why ACHD won't accept them or -- and do we want to ask for further -- another
neighborhood meeting before it comes back to us?
Borup: To do what?
Zaremba: To discuss the treatment of the narrow section.
Newton-Huckabay: I think the neighborhood meeting -- the second neighborhood
meeting was pretty effective in the EI Gato situation and this isn't -- as Mr. Morrison
pointed out, that -- you know, I mean I expected when I saw EI Gato on the docket
tonight that here we go again and, obviously, that neighborhood meeting was very
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4. 2005
Page 46 of 57
effective and I don't think it's a bad idea in this situation either. It might save us two
hours next time.
Zaremba: Let me suggest that the chair would entertain a motion to continue these
hearings and request that in the meantime the applicant hold another neighborhood
meeting -- first, provide some alternate suggestions is for the one strip that's in
contention, hold a neighborhood meeting about those suggestions, before it comes
back to us. I see some heads nodding. Is that a consensus?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. For me.
Zaremba: The question would be for us where would we want to put that and, then, for
the applicant could they make some alternate drawings and have a neighborhood
meeting before the time that we suggest. Anybody want to propose a date?
Rohm: Well, before we propose a date --
Zaremba: Or do we want to --
Rohm: Well, I think that's the direction we need to go, but I also think that none of this is
of any value if we don't get concurrence from Ada County Highway District. So, if the
developer and the community meeting come to one conclusion and Ada County
Highway District doesn't buy off on it, you haven't moved forward, so--
Zaremba: Well, I think we can signal the ACHD that our Planning and Zoning
Commission is not buying this configuration. There needs to be something else.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: So, that message can be --
Rohm: Yeah. I think the developer needs to get alternatives from ACHD that are
acceptable within that venue prior to having the community meeting, so that the
alternatives can be discussed. That would --
Zaremba: Be possible.
Rohm: Yeah. Would be possible.
Zaremba: That makes sense.
Rohm: So, with that being said, we should probably move it out--
Zaremba: Could we ask Mr. Nickel if he could suggest a time frame?
Nickel: When is your next--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 47 of 57
Zaremba: We are suggesting that you provide a couple drawings, consult with ACHD
again and, then, hold a neighborhood meeting before the continuation date. How long
do you think some of that would take? And we are only talking about the strip in the
middle. The north and south portions are --
Nickel: Now, Mr. Chairman, when you say meet with ACHD, what are you expecting to
get from them? I mean we can't go back to their Commission, so it would be staff's -- I
guess staff -- a letter from staff, is that what you're indicating?
Zaremba: We would need their input on your alternates to this.
Nickel: Okay. We can do that in a relatively--
Zaremba: And I --
Nickel: We could do that pretty quickly.
Zaremba: I realize they have -- as you say, there is a time for appealing what their
commission does.
Nickel: Right.
Zaremba: But I think the point is this Commission would recommend denial of it as is
and that's a point you need to make to them. That this section needs to be reconfigured
somehow.
Nickel: And I guess I need to restate myself. I know we can reconfigure it with staff and
get them to accept it. The only thing I am concerned with is if we were to do the two
cul-de-sac concept, because of their policy that requires --
Zaremba: Yeah. I didn't see support for the two cul-de-sacs.
Nickel: Okay. But -- I know we can get to staff -- ACHD staff and come up with an
alternative within that time fame, so --
Zaremba: And I think it's a consensus that you may end up losing not very many, but a
few of the 16 lots. I don't have a problem with making them wider, you know, to --
Moe: Quite frankly, a little additional square footage is going to help it out as well. It's
going to get it a little closer to, you know, your basic requirements.
Rohm: What date?
Nickel: Two weeks we can have this resolved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 48 of 57
Moe: The 18th is a little full. I think the 1 st of September would be the earliest we
would want to see that.
Zaremba: I'm trying to think of the stack of things I have -- that would be work. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: They are all this big.
Zaremba: Is the 1 st of September workable? Thank you.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commission, with that time frame I'm hopeful that we can have it
resolved and when we come back it will be a quick meeting. In your motion, though, if
there is anything else in addition to that that you want to discuss, please, let us know
now, so if there is anything else we need to look at, we can have that addressed.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess the other thing I would question -- because I did hear some
of the folks in the audience did not get notification of the meeting, so I kind of want to
make sure that all in attendance are given the opportunity to be at this neighborhood
meeting, so I guess that means we need to put a piece of paper out and so we get all
addresses or whatever. I want to make sure that they get that opportunity to be at this
neighborhood meeting.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I believe I could -- if I could get a copy of the sign-up sheet from
the clerk, we can use that as part of our mailing list, in addition to the 300-foot radius
that we already have.
Moe: Right.
Zaremba: Well -- and we encourage homeowners to include their neighbors. If you get
a notice, check and see if your neighbor did. There is a legal requirement to notify
people within 300 feet. If you live beyond that, then, you need to have heard from your
neighbors or, you know, tell the president of your homeowners association and hope
they will get the word out to it, so --
Borup: Or read the sign.
Zaremba: Uh?
Borup: That's another reason why there is signage out.
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: But that wouldn't be for the neighborhood meeting, though.
Borup: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 49 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one more comment. Mr. Nickel just -- if this is
all we are going to discuss when we come back, to, please, make sure -- was there
something, Mr. Nickel, that you are concerned that we didn't address that we are going
to need to get to at the next meeting?
Zaremba: Yeah. I do want to make sure we have covered all the issues that -- so we
aren't raising new issues at the next meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. And the only other one I can think of was the R-8 zoning,
which with the adjustments we have suggested, I am not overly concerned about it
myself, but I would --
Mae: I guess I would say I'm not too concerned with that either. And, not only that, we,
basically, are in an R-8 zone within that area in the Camp Plan, so I think the
combination of losing a few lots and we are going to gain some footage in others, I think
that's going to take care of that problem itself.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Moe: So, having said that, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we -- what do I move? I move that we continue the hearings on AZ
05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission of September 1 st, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Traditionally, we take a break about 9:00 o'clock.
We will do so now and reconvene in about ten minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 13:
Public Hearing: MCU 05-001 Request for a Minor Modification of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero
lot frontages for Paramount Subdivision No.9 by Paramount
Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North Meridian
Road & North Linder Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 50 of 57
Zaremba: We will reconvene this meeting and let the record show that all
Commissioners are again present and we are ready to move onto Item 13. I will open
the Public Hearing for MCU 05-001 and point out to the Commissioners that this will be
a final action of the Commission, this is not a recommendation to the City Council, we
will be the final action, unless there is an appeal to the City Council. And the motion will
reflect that it's not a recommendation. And we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject site is
cross-hatched within that red circle there and it's located on the east side of Fox Run
Way, which is one of the main streets coming from the development from Chinden.
This is about 1,700 feet south of Chinden Boulevard. The present zoning district is R-8
and the Comprehensive Plan designation is medium density residential. This site is
currently vacant. The applicant has requested a modification to the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit to construct nine model homes and a parking lot on a proposed
temporary private street. The applicant is proposing to fence around the model homes
and construct a gate on the private street. Now, the parking lot will not be fenced or
gated off, so the fence is on the perimeter, except for the parking lot. The private street
is proposed to be re-platted once the use of the structures for model homes is no longer
necessary. Each model home, the parking lot, and the private street are all on
proposed individual lots as shown here. The applicant has submitted a final plat
application, by the way, which will be up I believe next Tuesday before the City Council
for their approval. So, the build-able lots are probably a few months away, maybe a
little bit more, before the actual build-able lots here, but I wanted to make you aware of
that. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this is a modification to a previously approved CUP
and has been determined that it's a minor modification and so this is the final action. I
will be preparing findings for your signature and bring them back, I believe, to -- it won't
be on the agenda necessarily, but you will have to approve any changes you make and
sign, but a couple things, I guess, with the -- in the staff report. We did recommend
changes to this -- and this is my rendition of -- Gene Smith helped me out this last week
with getting a couple of the different site plans and I kind of took the hybrid and put a
parking lot -- overlayed a parking lot on what he gave me with the pads, so they are just
not quite to scale, but that's generally the design of that parking lot. One comment on
that parking lot. I thought it was appropriate that a 20-foot wide buffer be installed along
this boundary of the parking lot to provide a good buffer to the future single family home.
Now, there isn't -- this hasn't platted yet, so there aren't any homes out here at all. One,
I believe, right in here, at least a build-able lot here. But I talked to -- not knowing how
long the model home business would be up, that was probably going to be the most
intrusive part of this use and thought that that was appropriate, so I just wanted to point
that out. We are also recommending that the hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.
m. to 10:00 p. m. That's what a lot of these other neighborhood office type uses are
that we have seen in the recent past anyways. And I guess one final thing that I would
like to point out is that after three years I did have a caveat there that if the city does
receive complaints, that we should be able to have the applicant back before the board
or Council, I guess it's worded, to decide if any other conditions -- additional conditions
or restrictions are appropriate for this use, not knowing how long this could be running
for and potential problems that there may be if it runs for four or five, six, seven years or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 51 of 57
something. So, with that I guess I'll stand and recommend this for approval with the
conditions for approval.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is an additional condition I
need to add to this that I didn't get into it originally. The west street is a private lane, as
such it doesn't have any easements on it. We need a blanket utility easement in case
we ever had to do any work on sewer and water mains. Once it's dedicated to ACHD
right of way, they would have the easement on it through the right of way. I put this
condition on the final plat that's going before City Council next Tuesday. It's just an
oversight on my part on this application. So, if I could get that read in, I would
appreciate it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. I have two comments
on the staff report and they are Attachment B, Conditions of Approval. Number 1. 8 in
the last sentence, it seems a little vague to me and I was going to suggest that the last
sentence be: Further, the gates on Dryphus Street shall be removed when anyone of
the model homes converts. So, essentially, the first one that is converted would cause
the gates to be removed and, then, on 1. 9 I can see the sense to having that, but I
would suggest a specific date, rather than -- it just seems if anybody complains in three
years we will reconsider that seems a little vague. I would put a date on it. August
2008 or something like that and -- so that it comes up as a flag on somebody's calendar
and if there is -- everything is going fine, then, there is nothing to add -- those are my
only comments. And if there is nobody else -- Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Just -- I mean a use of this type is pretty low -- pretty low usage. And the
builders would probably like to see a lot of traffic in there, but it's not a real high traffic
type use. It's just people coming to look at model homes.
Newton-Huckabay: And hopefully have one of theirs --
Zaremba: To me, I'm surprised we haven't seen this before. We are starting to have
some projects that are a big enough area that this makes sense to me. I don't see -- I'm
surprised this is the first one, but I can --
Borup: Well, I think this subdivision already has one similar to that, but it's kind of
fenced, but it's not a section -- the street isn't private, though.
Zaremba: All right. Well, I guess we are ready for the applicant, if there is anything to
add.
Turnbull: I'd like to add that I'm glad all those people won't -- they weren't here for me.
David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate the staff report and the
comment on the easement is acceptable. I think that that's probably -- if you include it
in the final plat, I don't know that it needs to go in the conditional use, but however you
want to handle it, that's fine with us. Commissioner Zaremba's comment to add anyone
of is acceptable. On the 1. 9, I want to clarify that a little bit. If you're saying that if by a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 52 of 57
date certain, say three years from the date of approval of this modification that if you
have received any complaints, then, at that three year period we could come back for it,
but if you haven't received any complaints, I'd rather not have to come back for a
mandatory hearing when we haven't caused any problems.
Zaremba: Well -- and that was my thinking, too, but that it's somewhere in somebody's
tickler system there needs to be a flag that August of 2008 saying have there been any
complaints, well, then, we need to discuss this. If there haven't, then, it's over.
Turnbull: There is no hearing if there is no complaints; right?
Zaremba: Yeah. But it's closure for you either way--
Borup: Okay. That's fine.
Zaremba: -- to say at some date it's over.
Turnbull: We did -- as Commissioner Borup said, we did -- we have a model row in the
first phase and it's worked very well. In fact, almost better than the Parade of Homes.
This will be our 2006 Parade of Homes section right here. But I like the idea of having
this on a street all by itself, because, then, we won't have a street where we have some
residents occupied, we are able to block it off and set it up properly. So, that's the
purpose of this modification. And I'll stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Any other questions? All right.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. We have nobody signed up to speak, but -- and the only one
that's here is probably here for another project, not this one, so that doesn't require any
rebuttal. Commissioners, any discussion? Motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Anna didn't write one at the end of the thing, so I don't know what to
say. Is this a Public Hearing?
Zaremba: The chair recognizes Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move the Public Hearing on MCU 05-001 be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 53 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we approve -- we are actually approving this;
right?
Zaremba: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: We approve MCU 05-001, to include all staff comments and
conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing date of August 4th, with the received
-- they changed. July 29th. And the statement regarding the date certain was in the
motion -- or in your staff report; right? I don't need to add that, do I? Or do I?
Zaremba: I think staff and applicant have agreed that there should be a date certain
established and that date probably can't be set until the City Council -- well, the City --
this is it.
Newton-Huckabay: We are so out of our element being it.
Zaremba: Yeah. I think it would be appropriate to add it to the motion. It's 1. 9.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we'd like to add as 1. 9 that if the city has had any
complaints, that the applicant will come back for a hearing for potential additional
restrictions on the Conditional Use Permit. If there have been no complaints, there will
be no additional hearing. And then --
Zaremba: And the decision date on that is August 2008.
Newton-Huckabay: August 2008. And would be bullet 1. 9 that the applicant will grant
a blanket utility easement to the Public Works Department. Did I get that right?
Because I wasn't prepared to make this motion.
Canning: That last one should be 2. 15.
Newton-Huckabay: 2. 15. As stated by the planning director. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: See, I'm the reason why you're going to put the statements on the
end.
Rohm: I thought you did very well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 54 of 57
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, staff is actually supposed
to fill in all those dates. There was a little misunderstanding on those things. But that's
why we have got the draft motion for you, so that we can fill in the dates and the site
plan and all those fun things for you.
Newton-Huckabay: Are the dates not -- this looks a lot different. Wasn't there a
received date on the old staff report?
Zaremba: They were stamped by the clerk.
Borup: They were stamped by the clerk.
Canning: Yes. There used to be a report date and, then, a hearing date, but we are
going to be doing new staff reports for hearings. So, the need for the staff report date
isn't as critical as it used to be, because we are going to do a new staff report when it
goes up to City Council that reflects your conditions and findings.
Moe: And have you warned Council that you have a new format?
Canning: Yes. And I have actually warned you a few times, too.
Zaremba: It's so long ago we can't remember.
Moe: Was I not at that meeting?
Item 13:
Public Hearing: MCU 05-001 Request for a Minor Modification of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero
lot frontages for Paramount Subdivision No.9 by Paramount
Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North Meridian
Road & North Linder Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Moving right along. I would like to open the Public Hearing for CUP
05-035, related to Devon Park, Fairview Lakes, north of East Fairview Avenue and
between North Meridian Road and North Locust Grove Road and begin with the staff
report.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I'll make this brief. This is
Devon Park again. We have lost count. The request before you tonight is for a detailed
conditional use approval of a 4,200 square foot restaurant that's shown in the circled
area. You can see a little bit of a close-up there. And the traffic pattern. The portions
of the property that have already received detail are east of Lakes -- North Lakes
Boulevard, but this has received detailed -- all this along North Lakes and, then, along
here, these two buildings on the north side. So, this is the next application. These
three structures have not received detailed approval yet. I had to give the clerk a copy
of a memo dated today and -- regarding an additional item I want you to include. First I
will show you the elevations of the proposed restaurant. There we go. What
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 55 of 57
happened? Sorry about that. Okay. Here we are. Back again. The staff has
recommended approval of the restaurant, the detailed CU for the restaurant, but I did
just want to highlight the one additional condition that we are asking you to make.
Basically, what it was is when this first came through in 2003, the applicant was not
sure, as part of their conceptual planned development, as to what kind of amenities
would be in this -- the area east of Lakes Boulevard. So, there was a condition put on it
at that time that no more than 50 percent of the building area or 36,300 square feet, be
approved for detailed conditional use approval until we had a concept plan of what kind
of amenity it would have and it talks about common usable areas and/or reorient the
buildings to create a pedestrian-oriented feature for the development. So, with this
approval, if you approve this tonight, it brings the total square footage up to 29,629,
which is of -- it's getting very near that 50 percent. But as you can see over, 50 percent
of the traffic pattern has already been established and the -- the parking areas and
things like that. So, we really feel it's important to add that condition that says, basically,
the next time you come in let us know what that amenity is that you're going to be
providing. And other than that, it's a pretty straight-forward Conditional Use Permit
request.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? No? I have two small typos to
comment on. On page two of the staff report, Item C, adjacent land use and zoning
number three, identifies the properties to the south as a future phase of Paramount
Subdivision, I think. That's not correct. Something else is south. Commercial
development that already exists. A car wash, car lot, something like that.
Canning: It's actually zoned R-8 immediately across the street.
Newton-Huckabay: It's not Paramount.
Zaremba: But it's not Paramount, that's all I'm saying.
Canning: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: On the west side of Lakes there is commercial, but it's zoned R-8 on the east
side of Lakes.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, in D, history of previous -- the first sentence, in 2002 the city
approved annexation and zoning of 24. 89 acres to -- and I think that should be C-N,
community neighborhood, followed by C-G.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Those were my two typos. And if nobody else has any questions, we will ask
the applicant to come forward. You have been patient all night, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 56 of 57
Hopkins: Thank you. Randy Hopkins, 1390 East Mallory Lane, Meridian, Idaho.
83642. Yes, we are here excited about we have a regional restaurant that's close that
we should be able to announce in the next 30 days for this location. As your staff has
stated, it's pretty straight forward and we are happy to cooperate as we get a little more
square footage and the plans coming together to do the additional pedestrian oriented
amenity and haven't decided exactly what that is, but as this develops, then, we have
some intent to proceed with the other buildings that have been specific CUPs already,
so we are excited to be here and I think this is a good addition to the community. Thank
you. Any questions?
Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you very much. Nobody else has signed up and
there is nobody else in the audience, so I guess we don't need public testimony and a
rebuttal. Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
Newton-Huckabay: My pleasure would be not to make another motion tonight. My last
one was a big flunky,
Borup: It was perfect. We are spreading the wealth tonight. Any further discussion
needed or are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing on -- see, I'm not ready for this either. CUP
05-035.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval to City Council of File No. CUP
05-035, as presented in the staff report dated August 4th and the site plan dated
December 20th, 2004, with the following conditions of approval with Exhibit B and also
include the memorandum dated August 4th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3. 02
acres to R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South
Linder Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 57 of 57
Item 16:
Public Hearing: PP 05-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21
single-family residential building lots and 7 common area lots on 2. 91
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC
- 675 South Linder Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and
minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision by
Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. We are shy of being the one that makes the motion to
close the hearing, because everybody expects that same person to make the other
motions. Okay. The chair will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-003, PP 05-032, and
CUP 05-036, all relating to Banff Subdivision on South Linder Road and entertain a
motion to continue these to August 18th, '05.
Borup: So moved.
Rohm: So moved.
Zaremba: Okay. Would one of you care to make that a second?
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Newton-Huckabay: August 18th?
Zaremba: August 18th. Yes. Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
Canning: I did have a gentleman provide written testimony and I will hand that to the
clerk. I think he will show up on the 18th as well.
Zaremba: Distribute it before the 18th. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: We didn't have people here for Banff earlier, did we?
Zaremba: No. Nobody left when I announced that we would not be hearing it.
Moe: Actually, there was two people.
Borup: Before the meeting.
Zaremba: We have one more motion to make.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 58 of 57
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Moe: I second that.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:07 P. M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
&~~N
........"
ATTESTE'