2005 09-01
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Sep~
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 1, 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 Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther,
Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regular meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, September 1 st, 2005. We will
begin with a roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. We will take all items in order,
but for those of you who may be here for some of them, let me mention something.
Items 18, 19, and 20, which relate to Irvine Subdivision, that's near Ten Mile and
Chinden, there has been a request to continue that to September 15th. ACHD is just
acting on it and our staff needs time to assimilate that. So, on that one we will have no
substantive discussion, we will just continue it to two weeks from now. Items 23 and 24,
Reserve Subdivision, which is near Locust Grove and Chinden, there has been a
request to withdraw it. So, that will be our only action on that one tonight. Other than
that, we will take them all in order and if I don't hear any objections from the
Commissioners, we will consider the agenda adopted.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Item No.8. Is that not to be withdrawn as well?
Zaremba: That is withdrawn. I didn't mention it, because it's not a Public Hearing, but
you are correct. That is an item that is a recommendation -- or, I'm sorry, a request for
appeal. It's not discussed as a Public Hearing, but, yes, eight has been withdrawn as
well. Thank you.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 2 of 90
A.
Approve Minutes of July 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: Okay. Next would be the approval of the minutes of July 21, 2005. And I
have a couple -
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Commissioner Moe, go first.
Moe: Come on, now, I want to show you I do read these things for once. On page 16,
in the fourth point, it's noted that Borup had responded and Commissioner Borup was
not there that night, so I'm assuming it was supposed to be Chris Brower was to be
noted in both responses where they speak of Borup. On page 16.
Zaremba: I agree with that. I was going to mention that. I'm glad you got there first.
Moe: Well, I wanted to take the opportunity, you know. That's alii have.
Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? Okay. I do have one other and that is on page
47. I am speaking, it's the second time down. If we were to recommend -- and I will ask
the Commission a question. The words that are there may, actually, be what I said, but
when it's written down you miss the inflections and the intent and on the dry wording on
the print, it actually comes out backwards of what I intended and I would suggest to
substitute - it says I would withdraw my recommendation for the ten feet. I would prefer
to substitute for the word for the word without. The intent was that I would withdraw my
recommendation without the ten feet. And I believe it sounded that way, but doesn't
come out that way in print. Any objection to my suggesting that being amended?
Moe: No.
Zaremba: Okay. So, that's page 47. If we were to recommend to move it forward, I
would withdraw my recommendation without the ten feet, so it isn't just an opinion. That
would be the change. And let the record reflect that Commissioner Borup has joined us.
So, we are all here. And I would entertain a motion on the minutes of July 21 st.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we accept the minutes as amended.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 3 of 90
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Recommendation: VAG 05-011 Request for a Vacation of Irrigation
Easements for Bonito Subdivision by Dave Evans Construction - 3041
East Copper Point Drive:
Zaremba: The next several items on our agenda, I mentioned, are either
recommendations or other actions that are not Public Hearings, so, we won't actually
seek public comment on them, although we may have some discussion between the
Commissioners and staff before we make a recommendation to the City Council. And,
actually, we will learn from staff that some of these are, actually, not ready to discuss
tonight, but we will begin with VAC 05-011. Please go 'ahead.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This one is going to need two more weeks. I was
talking to the Public Works representative earlier and it appears that the planning and
zoning application did not receive all of the information and we -- the last letter that I
was given was a letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation saying that they were not going
to relinquish that easement and this has been taken care of since, so we would need
two more weeks for this approval, so that staff has time to draft the staff report for this.
Zaremba: Okay. Chair would entertain a motion to continue VAC 05-011 to September
15th.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to move to continue V AC 05-011 to the regularly scheduled meeting of
September 15th.
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 5:
Recommendation: VAG 05-014 Request to Vacate Ada County Highway
District Right-of-Way for Dorado Subdivision by W.H. Moore - northwest
corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road:
Zaremba: Next we have VAC 05-014.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 4 of 90
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The applicant has requested that this be
continued for two weeks as well. There is some clarification that needs to be taken care
of between ITD and ACHD for right of way issues of ownership of right of way that is is it
eligible to be vacated or not.
Zaremba: Did you say two weeks or longer?
Guenther: I believe the applicant just asked for a continuance. Two weeks should be
enough for the City of Meridian staff in order to make a recommendation.
Zaremba: Thank you. The chair would entertain a motion to continue this item to
September 15th.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue Item VAC 05-014 to the regularly scheduled meeting of
Planning and Zoning of September 15th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Recommendation: VAG 05-015 Request to Vacate City of Meridian
water and sewer easements for Marce Subdivision by James R. Wylie-
3070 Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: Moving right along. I will open VAC 05-015. And staff, please.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is a vacation of a sewer and
water easement that was recorded as part of Marce Subdivision. On the plat, when the
sewer and water mains were going where they had planned them to go -- since, then,
they have redone the site plan. They are not going to place the sewer and water mains
where they had originally thought. The easements are still there, so they -- the
building's footprint would be spanning those easements. They just need to vacate
those. Public Works has no problems with this, except for one condition be placed on it,
that prior to the City Council that we need an easement in hand that actually shows
where the sewer and the water will be placed to protect those facilities.
Zaremba: In theory, the new easement has already been identified; it just needs to be
formalized?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 5 of 90
Cole: They know -- yes. They know where it's at, they just have to draft it, get a legal of
it, and submit it.
Zaremba: So, the function that was required in the old easement is still going to work?
Cole: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: Well, until that's actually taken place, how can we vacate this easement, if the
other one hasn't been issued?
Cole: We just want your permission to vacate it and prior to City Council we would
condition that they have that easement to us, so that it will be in place prior to City
Council's recommendation.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: In theory, we could say that we are in favor of the idea, but it has to be
completed before City Council.
Cole: Similar to -- yes. Similar to the creamery vacation that we heard two meetings
ago. There was the condition that they get the surety for the replacement of that sewer
line. If we don't get that before City Council date, we would change our
recommendation as staff.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any discussion among Commissioners? Anybody care to make
a recommendation?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number
V AC 05~0 15, as presented in the staff report, for the hearing date of September 1 st,
2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Continued from August 18, 2005 AP 05-001 Request for an Appeal for
the denial of a fence waiver for Justin Martin by Justin Martin - 5606
North Ten Mile Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 6 of 90
Zaremba: Next I'd like to reopen a continued discussion from August 18th. This is a
request from Justin Martin to appeal a denial of a fence waiver and we will begin with
the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this may be an unfamiliar
topic to you, so I'll go back and explain a little bit about what's in the code regarding
fence requirements. The zoning ordinance does allow for variations to the fence
standards through a process -- previously it had been a whole fence committee. It was
recently changed, about two years ago, to just be a decision on my part after we send
out notices and collect testimony, as it were, and, then, I make a decision. Mr. Martin
asked for a waiver to the fence requirements in the front yard for his property. That
request was to reduce from a 20-foot setback to a ten-foot setback in order to be
allowed to put a six-foot fence at ten feet, rather than 20 feet. The code allows for a six
foot fence at the 20-foot line, or if you want to do it anywhere between in that first
required yard, in that first 20 feet of your lot, there would either have to be a three foot
solid or a four foot open fence. So, instead of a four foot open or three foot solid, he
wants a six-foot within that front yard setback. Now, the city has granted such waivers
on corner lots for the side -- street side property -- not the front one, but the street side.
So, you have got a comer lot. The front part of the property would have the 20-foot
setback, but the side one we have allowed people to ask for a reduction from 20 feet to
ten feet. To my knowledge -- I checked with folks who had been involved with these
fence waivers for a number of years, and to my knowledge we haven't allowed an
exception to the front yard requirements. Primarily what we allow for is the side yard
requirements. So, I did deny the waiver request, because there is no precedent, under
my knowledge -- from my understanding. Also, this is not a usual front yard. It's not
unusual property. It is an unusual piece of property. It is surrounded by park. But the
front of it is along Ten Mile and, normally, along Ten Mile we would see a 25 foot
landscape buffer before that piece of property. So, by reducing the front yard and
putting a six foot fence, you're basically getting a ten foot landscape buffer along Ten
Mile, instead of the 25 that we would normally see in a subdivision, where the houses
are taking access from a different point and, then, backing up to Ten Mile. So, that was
the reason for the denial. And I will answer any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Don't have any questions, other than I served on the fence committee for five or
six years and I -- everything Director Canning said is -- I agree with a hundred percent,
as far as past precedence and what we have done before, and being a section line road
and everything.
Zaremba: Thank you. We continued this from a previous meeting, because we weren't
sure that Mr. Martin was actually notified that we are going to discuss it and could be
here and my question would be is Mr. Martin here and would he care to say anything?
Please come forward and identify yourself.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 7 of 90
Martin: Hello. My name is Justin Martin. I live at 5606 North Ten Mile Road. I did get
some pictures, if you are interested in seeing them, of the frontage area. Just some
other background would be -- the home was built in '92, was built in the county. It was
annexed into the city with the Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The fence ordinance, you
know, definitely makes sense for subdivision homes. It's just a unique scenario. We
were hoping we could look at the pictures and see what it looks like out there, knowing
Ten Mile is a busy road as well. The ordinance, I think, primarily would be -- it makes
sense, but I think it makes sense for new construction. I don't believe it was planned for
every case scenario. You know, this case scenario is that it was a county home, it was
annexed into the city. You know, it was never planned to be in these sorts of situations.
The guy that built it originally would have had it the county. The large willow tree there,
you know, it's like 35 feet tall, 45 feet wide, 20 foot setback goes right through the
middle of the trunk of the tree. There is two or three other trees on the property, that if
you set the fence back to the 20 foot line, would stand a good chance of dying. Not that
it runs right through the middle of them, but the trees are too large to move with the
spades that are available in Boise. And, then, root systems in there -- I mean, anyway,
I'm just concerned about that. I did have a tree guy come over and look and he did say
those trees are too large to relocate. The white fence that's out there now was pre-
existing prior to an annexing into the city. It's setback ten feet from the current right of
way. We should keep in mind that when it was annexed into the city, you know, we
gave additional right of way to ACHD. The sewer and water lines -- the sewer line
actually went to the other side of the road, but the water line went across the front of the
property and there is all like gravel space you can see out there now where we moved
the lawn back to handle -- to handle that additional right of way that was given. And,
then, an additional 20 feet would be asked, you know, at the time we want to put this
fence up based on the current ordinance. The reason for the fence, in general, is that it
is by the future city park there, that 30-acre park. I don't know if PAL soccer is still
planning on going there or not, but in the case that there is something like that there,
we, obviously, needed a fence for security and we have animals, we have dogs, we
have a swimming pool, there is definitely some liability issues of the location. This
frontage issue, you know, probably doesn't relate to that, because I would be allowed to
have a fence anyway, but it more brings up the idea of why I built this fence around the
other three sides already. You know, otherwise, the white vinyl fence is fine there. I
just want more security, more privacy. And I think that the major issues would be the
mature landscaping to have the possibility of dying. The willow tree definitely would be
wiped out. That's not very appealing. And any further setbacks -- the 20 foot, the ten, I
mean it's only ten feet I'm looking for and I know you can say either way, it's only ten
feet. But it definitely gives me a feel of more space in my yard, more space, less
crowding to the front of the home. The willow tree serves as a great buffer to the traffic
noise at night. My oldest daughter, her window is the top one you can see there, and
it's definitely noisy and we all know the traffic is going to get worse and worse. The
willow tree is definitely nice for that buffering. You know, a six-foot fence isn't going to
do much for that. But the willow tree definitely helps out. That's pretty much it. I mean
there is a few trees -- a few other large trees that may die, the willow tree being the
largest of them. And I think it will look nice. I think it would look nice with the ten-foot
setback. The fence I'm going to put up is nice. It's not something that's poor in design
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 8 of 90
or -- it's going to weather well. It's a stained concrete precast fence. It has a sealer on
it. Anyway, it's not going be an eye sore to the city. It's things we have used in our
subdivisions on these frontage areas on Linder Road and on McMillan Road in some of
the subdivisions that we have built. Obviously, we don't build homes that face arterial
roadways, though, in new subdivision development. So, it's just one of those older case
scenarios where somebody didn't maybe plan it out well. I mean the home if it sits back
another 40 feet would be quite the benefit, but can't have the luxury of having everything
planned out early on. So, I guess in closing, so I don't just stand up here and talk
forever for you, is that, really, the existing fence at ten foot setback, they are going to
put a sidewalk across the front, so there will be foot traffic across the front of the
property. Again, it connects to the park on both sides. Is all I'm asking is that we -- is
that we allow -- allow me to rebuild, take down the existing fence, build a new fence in
the same location. I'd stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: So, that would be correct, that the existing fence is grandfathered in at that
location?
Martin: Ten feet back.
Mae: And the fencing that you say you're going to put -- you want to put in there, you're
going to put all around the perimeter as well?
Martin: I've built it on three sides now. I held it back on this side that -- if we can see
the fence through the willow tree, I held it back 22 feet on that side, because there is the
sidewalk that will get constructed through the lawn area there in the front, needs to
curve around that little building you see on the bottom corner of the screen, it's a pump
house that's going to stay there. It's -- anyway, it's on the park property and it makes
sense to allow the sidewalk to intrude into some of my grass further to go around that,
as opposed to ripping it down or whatever.
Moe: So, you're saying that the sidewalk will be on your property going into the park
area?
Martin: It absolutely is on my property. It's not in the right of way of ACHD. It's on my
land. And that's a standard of what we do in the developments as well. Lochsa Falls,
for instance, 60 foot buffer area in the front. Gave the additional right of way to ACHD,
put the sidewalk in the front of our common area and, then, a 50-foot buffer and, then,
you know, a wall on the back of that to help buffer the noise of traffic into the subdivision
on top of a berm. Again, kind of why this is -- we simply don't put homes in these
locations anymore.
Rohm: Did you say that your home was annexed into the city as part of Lochsa Falls?
Martin: It was annexed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 9 of 90
Rohm: As a lot?
Martin: It does have a lot and block at this point. It doesn't connect to any other homes
in Lochsa Falls, because of the city park, when we came -- when we came through with
Lochsa Falls, the owner of some of the land in that project owned this home and at that
time, and probable still, it was the theory of the city to not leave little chunks like this in
the county, to bring them in and, obviously, we wanted to do what the city is requiring or
asking of us, then, and so we brought it in with it. The city park choose that location,
because it was the most frontage they could get on an arterial roadway and it's just
circumstances, that the house just has odd circumstances around it. We haven't
developed a site that had a house like this. Usually, the homes are -- the exiting homes
are further back in or they are of the style that we can take down, you know, one or the
other. Saguaro Canyon, for instance, there is a home on that one that was existing that
-- but it's sitting far enough in we were able to plan around it, do a good job of that. This
home was just different. And so, again, the wall, in general, is because of the park
being around there. I have a dog. I sure don't want kids getting bit. A wrought iron
fence would be nice for the view and the accessibility and things like that, the open feel,
but it doesn't make sense when -- and we have an above-ground pool, we sure don't
want to invite little kids to be playing in there that are in the park or accidents to happen.
We certainly don't want our dog in contact with anybody in the park, things like that.
And that's just information, it doesn't relate to me asking for the location of the front
fence.
Zaremba: The subdivision shown to the south of your house, Verona, has that been
built yet?
Martin: It has. The portion that's shown -- is shown on that picture there has mostly
been built in the way of the homes, anyway. The streets are in the subdivision. Done
for the most part and the homes have been going up fairly quickly.
Zaremba: Where I was going with that is have they put in their fence and is it 20 feet
back?
Martin: I would be sure it is. I mean we don't build subdivisions -- anyway, I haven't yet
-- I'm sure it's a minimum of 20 feet back, if not more. Again, our subdivision buffers are
40 to 60, even though the city standard is less than that. And I would assume that that's
at least the minimum.
Zaremba: The reason I asked that is just visualizing as Ten Mile builds out -- I certainly
understand your concern, but in other places we have tried to be consistent with where
fence lines and landscape buffers are and that's really why it's in the ordinance the way
it is, even though this was county and, you know, ordinances have changed since then.
Would there be -- would there be a place at like 18 feet where your tree would be
safe --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 10 of 90
Martin: The largest tree there has a trunk of about three and a half, four feet around,
and that 20 feet is right in the center of that. And it's not just the fence hitting the trunk, I
mean the root system, so you need to stay back far enough -- the trees -- some of the
trees, we move into these subdivisions, that are 30 feet tall, not as mature as that, much
smaller in growth size, that we are able to plant in these subdivisions, still have a ball of
90 inches big and, anyway, none of these trees could be moved within a 90 inch space
and the concern is if you don't save enough of the roots, my concern was the fence
would be -- if we dig this 18 inch hole to hold the concrete -- hold the wall up, I just --
anyway, if you hit a root, the tree is going to die. Or a large root, the three is going to
die. That's my concern. And there are a few others here in the same situation. That
fence was built for the best location of going around the larger trees. You can see it
runs through a little tree down at the end, but little trees aren't as much concern. They
can be replaced.
Moe: Next question. I guess I -- if, in fact, you're putting in the fence at the front, are
you, then, going to go basically diagonal back to the north property line where your
fence is at that point there?
Martin: The 22-foot mark --
Moe: Yeah.
Martin: -- you're speaking about? Basically, it will go across until the sidewalk needs to
curve back onto the property here and, then, comes back out to the north. And so,
basically, the fence will just have a jog. I mean if you can picture the sidewalk going
straight and, then, curving into the property and, then, leaving -- turning north again and
going out. But the fence will follow that design. My thought would be out there with the
mature trees, this is walled up and, then, I would plant carpet roses, getting some reds
and -- anyway, some unusual pine things, some reds, blues, and yellows out in front of
it. Definitely have a plan for how to make it look good if -- the way it was. Sure, I could
make it look good without it, but --
Moe: And where is the sidewalk anticipated to be from that fence line?
Martin: The sidewalk will be -- maybe staff would be better answering this question.
Maybe three feet from the fence; is that right?
Canning: I think your application said two feet, but let me look.
Zaremba: And you're referring to the current fence line, two feet from the ten foot
setback.
Martin: So, if we were going to set the sidewalk into our property two feet and the.
sidewalk would be five feet wide, that would be five, six, seven, and leaving us with
three. That's what I believe how we planned on it being two feet in.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 11 of 90
Canning: So, the fence would be two feet from the edge of sidewalk?
Martin: Yeah. And so the view of it is still going to look all right, in my opinion, of
course, because these trees are massive that are behind -- that are going to be behind
it. People aren't going to be looking right at the sidewalk, they are going to be --
anyway, the feel of the view of the large trees, if any of those die or need to be
replaced, obviously, it's another -- it's a long time to get that scope of a landscaping
back again.
Moe: What kind of foundation do you have to put in to put this fence in that isn't going
to do the same thing?
Martin: Eighteen-inch tubes in the ground.
Moe: How deep?
Martin: How deep? Depending on the soil, between 35 and 54 inches deep.
Moe: And you don't anticipate hitting roots of that tree doing that as well?
Martin: I do. But I think the closer you get to the tree, which is, for the size of it, the
spade that you dig a tree with is based on the caliper size of the tree. The larger the
tree, the further you need to get away and it's, of course, to keep the larger roots that
are closer to the trees -- the further the wall is from the tree, the less concerned the
guys that do the tree work for us have about our trees not dying.
Borup: Where the pump house is there now, that's going to stay; is that your
understanding?
Martin: I would be speaking a bit out of turn. The pump house waters the property
across the street that Dave Turnbull owns. I'm sure you guys have seen the project. As
that property fades away, then, I would imagine the pump house fades away, but I don't
know for sure.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Anybody have any further questions for Mr. Martin?
Martin: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. There is a property on Linder, north side -- north of
Ustick, Baldwin Park? That's the development out there?
Borup: North of the school?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 12of90
now, with Ten Mile being the width it is, I don't think ifs going to matter either way, but
once Ten Mile is wider, that shorter setback is going to be even more obvious. But,
then, on that same note, like you said, there is parkland all around it
Borup: That's something I didn't realize earlier, that, I guess, is a factor to me, that it's
surrounded by a city park and it doesn't - it's not subdivision land each side with
existing landscape buffer and - I mean the park may do that, but ifs a little different
than having -- being surrounded by subdivisions and trying to have the same continuity.
And the other question I had earlier, there is a chance for this to redevelop and it
doesn't look like that's really something that's going to happen.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think if you see redevelopment of this piece of property, it's
going to be this piece of property developing as something - some special use. I mean
it's not big enough to put in -
Borup: I mean looking at the application there -- I didn't know how old the home was or
the size or anything. It's not an old farmhouse that's been there for a hundred years.
Zaremba: Well, I remember when - was it Lochsa Falls that was the cause of this
being annexed when we were -- whatever that development was we were discussing.
We knew it was surrounded by park on two sides and we discussed whether they
should change their access to the new road that was going to go south of them and lose
the Ten Mile access and the difficulty there is there is a drain or canal or something that
goes south of there and, then, Nampa Irrigation needed an easement for their own
travel back and forth, so, you know, some of this we have talked about trying to solve
some problems that leaving this one house there causes. The end solution was there
was no other option than to leave the access to Ten Mile. My personal feeling is that I
like the consistency that's in the ordinance. I don't particularly like threatening those
trees and thafs why I wonder if there is the possibility of some compromise that the
fence would maybe be the 20 feet back, except where it needs to skirt a tree and, then,
it could - I mean the fence would not end up being straight, but it would be back most of
the time.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, just bump out forward around the trees?
Zaremba: Yeah. And it could be five, eight feet from the tree, which at some point
would bring it out almost to the ten-foot point. I mean clearly they could leave the
existing fence where it is, as Commissioner Borup pointed out. It's grandfathered. If
they were making no changes, it could stay where it is. If they make a change, then,
the new ordinance does apply where it needs to be 20 feet back. But I'm -- you know,
I'm sympathetic to have some compromise to save the trees. That's my personal
opinion. Anybody else?
Borup: Well, I feel - I mean the ordinance is there for a reason and it makes a lot of
sense. I guess in this situation, looking at the surrounding properties and -- I don't have
a problem with leaving it where it's at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 13 of 90
sympathetic to have some compromise to save the trees. That's my personal opinion.
Anybody else?
Borup: Well, I feel -- I mean the ordinance is there for a reason and it makes a lot of
sense. I guess in this situation, looking at the surrounding properties and -- I don't have
a problem with leaving it where it's at.
Newton~Huckabay: Do we want to set that kind of precedence?
Borup: It's not binding.
Newton-Huckabay: For consistency sake.
Borup: Well, that's why these are looked at on a case-by-case basis, because every
one is different.
Moe: I guess being that we didn't discuss this at our last meeting and I think we were
pretty much to the point of in denial for this, other than the fact that the applicant had not
spoken to it, now that he's been there and a little clearer picture of the park and
everything else around it, my concern is is that when Ten Mile does widen out, it -- we
are going to be fairly cramped in there with the sidewalk and, then, you have got this
fence, he's putting basically a concrete wall. Shouldn't speak to esthetics, but I'm not
really thinking that's going to look real well that close to Ten Mile Road and so I --
although I think because of the park something should be done and, Commissioner
Zaremba, I would like to see some compromise as well, I'm just not sure that just
bumping it out where those trees are you're going to get -- there is going to be much -- I
think that's going to look probably a little worse than try and maybe do some
meandering or something of the sidewalk or whatever, if we are going to do something
like that, or I think we just need to stay to the ordinance and go from there.
Zaremba: Let me throw in one more thought into the mix and it's a compromise we
made on a commercial property about a block away from here who needed a sign close
to the curb right of way, which would knowingly have been in the future right of way
when Meridian Road is widened, we allowed them to build it in the future roadway --
future right of way, with a written understanding that it would be their expense to move it
when the roadway was widened.
Moe: I think expense is --
Zaremba: And it's a commercial property, not a residence. I'm not sure we want to --
Borup: The expense of moving a fence like that, it probably doesn't make sense.
Moe: Yeah. That wouldn't make any sense to do that.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 14 of 90
Rohm: I have a question of staff. When Ten Mile is fully developed out, how close is
the edge of the roadway going to be to the existing fence where it is currently?
Canning: I don't know. Sorry. I was looking around, hopefully, to see if there is an
ACHD person and I'm missing him. Oh, they sent someone new. That's why I didn't
recognize him. I'm not sure if he can tell you or not, but I don't know. I did just want to
clarify a couple things. One was I don't think the existing fence is grandfathered per se,
because I believe it meets code. It looks to be about four feet and it's open, so it does
meet code. I just wanted to let you understand that. And the other one is as far as
setting precedence, the new code does not have any fence waiver provisions, they
would just be variances, so just so you know that as well.
Oyen: Commissioner, Ross Oyen, Ada County Highway District. I'm afraid I can't tell
you where the ultimate roadway would be relative to the fence. We would have to have
quite a little bit more information before we could even make an educated guess and
that's just because we tend to try and fit our future roadways, our built out roadways,
into the existing constraints, you know, with -- oftentimes we will get 48 feet of right of
way from both sides of center line, but sometimes that doesn't occur and, therefore, we
just take the conditions that we have and work with them the best that we can. So, no
guarantee one way or the other about future of the fence relative to the build out of the
roadway.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Would that be -- are we saying here that this is a 76 foot right of way? Is that
what you anticipate?
Zaremba: I would point out that Ross is not, actually, from the right of way department,
so it's not surprising he might not --
Borup: But is that a standard right of way for a section line road that would foresee
eventual build out there?
Oyen: Commissioner, standard right of way for a section line road that is a future minor
arterial would, actually, be 96 total feet, so, typically, 48 feet each side of the section
line, and, honestly, this section of Ten Mile, I don't know if the future is a five lane
roadway section there, which is what the 96 feet would --
Borup: That's what I was wondering, whether it's three lane or five lane.
Oyen: Yeah. And that's somewhat depending on the land use that actually ends up in
play.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 150f90
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: If I can ask the applicant one more question. I'm kind of curious if he can -- if
there is a -- there is a pointer up there. Can you give me a location of where that willow
tree is over there?
Martin: It's like in that general area. Down this line there are a couple more large trees
as well. You can't see them through the willow. And as far as the right of way goes,
this entire north Meridian area, the ten square mile area that the people have talked
about in the past, ACHD decided to take only 38 feet from center line in all of these
areas, except for on McMillan Road where they had a canal on one side and they put 20
feet on the opposite side of those roads. In the subdivisions that we have done out here
in the past 48 was standard and on all this new stuff that was done on the north side of
town, 38 has been the standard. And that right of way is, obviously, already given. It's
already deeded to ACHD. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, this would be a final action and the choices are to
uphold the director's decision and deny the appeal or approve the appeal and overturn
the director's decision. Or let me ask the city attorney, Mr. Nary, do we have the
authority to offer some compromise that would be in between those two?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as you recall at the last meeting we
discussed, you have independent authority to decide how much of a waiver to grant, if
you want to and one of your discussion points was allowing just a portion to abut into
that. You have the ability to grant a partial waiver for a portion if you want to, so you
have the ability to grant the appeal and overturn the decision. You have the ability to
deny it. I mean you have, really, pretty much independent discretion to do any of those
choices.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I guess my concern is is pretty much everything to the north of the driveway he's
got trees on it, so I don't know what you're really going to be able to block out there to
make any real change there. I think basically we are up to whether we do or don't want
it in that spot, you know, the ten-foot, as opposed to 20.
Rohm: And Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 16 of 90
Rohm: My thoughts on this are if we were down the road a ways where the new
ordinances were in place, this would be coming before us as a variance request, as
opposed to just a waiver of existing ordinance, and as I understand variances, they are
pursuant to specific characteristics of the property that are unique and different from
what the ordinance was drafted to cover. This particular parcel of ground appears to
me to be in that category. It's unique as in all of the ground both north and south of the
property is city park and it's not going to be a condition where we were going to have a
20 foot setback for the development to the south and north and, then, this is going to
protrude out into the road right of way and to jog there. So, I don't think that this would
cause any kind of a disruption to the perceived setback. So, from my perspective, I
think that this is something that would qualify as something that would be acceptable as
a waiver parcel.
Zaremba: Just to suggest another thought. I certainly understand your thinking, but
would it make it more palatable to other members if the waiver were granted for the
majority of the frontage, but let's say within 20 feet of the sides of the property it had to
begin to angle back, so that at the property lines -- the north and south property lines it
was 20 feet back and, then, it could come even at a 45 degree angle out to ten feet --
I'm just thinking the park may some day want to do something and they will do it 20 feet
back and there is, actually, a subdivision to the south that's 20 feet back. I'm just
thinking within this property to make some acknowledgement of the 20 feet.
Rohm: I don't have any problem with that either. That's a good compromise.
Zaremba: Anybody else rise to that?
Borup: Well, it makes sense to me and I think I could agree with Commissioner Rohm.
I only have -- my only concern is if this becomes a 96-foot right of way and I guess we
don't have an answer for that. To the south -- Ten Mile to the south, no, we are not.
Zaremba: Well, at least at Ustick it's going to be five mile -- I mean south of Ustick it's
going to be five-lane.
Borup: Five-lane.
Zaremba: I don't know north of Ustick.
Borup: This is north of McMillan; right?
Zaremba: Yeah. This is north of McMillan. It would make sense that eventually some
day it should be.
Borup: That means the right of way would have to pay for this fence. The right of way
acquisition.
Newton-Huckabay: Are we rebuilding now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 17 of 90
Borup: I don't know. Maybe we are planning too far ahead, but isn't that what we are
doing is planning? Actually, I could support Commissioner Rohm's -- by the time,
maybe, that gets to -- by the time that ever gets to a five lane road, I'm probably not
going to be around. Unless there is a cemetery there.
Zaremba: Anybody care to propose a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: This wasn't a Public Hearing, so we don't have to close anything,
we just have to make a motion.
Zaremba: No, it wasn't a Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to move that we approve AP 05-001, request for an appeal
for a denial of a fence waiver -- I guess, no, we wouldn't approve it, we would -- no. We
would. For Justin Martin by Justin Martin, 5606 North Ten Mile Road, with the following
change, that there would be a --
Canning: May I suggest a 45-degree chamfer?
Newton-Huckabay: Forty-five degree --
Canning: Chamfer at the 20 feet. That's how we generally word those.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. With the change as stated by the director. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Continued from August 18, 2005 AP 05-002 Request for an Appeal for
the Cherrywood Plaza by Roy and Richard Brown - 1701 and 1735 West
Cherry Lane:
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you all. Next item is AP 05-002 and there has been a request
to withdraw that. The chair would entertain a motion to accept the withdrawal.
Borup: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 18 of 90
Zaremba: Did I read that right? It's Item 8, AP 05-002.
Rohm: I second that. Commissioner Borup --
Zaremba: Okay. Moved by Borup and seconded by Rohm. There has been a motion
and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are actually, coming to our first Public Hearing of the
evening and I would make two comments before we actually start. One is that as of
Tuesday night the City Council had its final and third reading of the new Uniform
Development Code, which I believe goes into effect September 15th; is that correct?
That is the date it will become effective. Our staff has diligently, over the last probably
almost a year, but certainly last many months, been comparing applications to both the
old code and the new Uniform Development Code and adding conditions to those that
would be approved under the old code that, essentially, match the new code. So, to
some extent the transition will be much more seamless than it might be if the code was
thrown out one day and there was a new code the next day. We, actually, have been,
for all practical purposes, operating pretty close to the new code already. So, I just
wanted to mention with some relief that the new code will go into effect two weeks from
now. The other is to alert people to our procedure, if you don't come to these hearings
very often. Our professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of
time together and discussed many items and so we begin each Public Hearing with a
presentation from our staff, letting us know where the project is, what the project is, and
any outstanding issues that may remain between them and the developer. We, then,
give the applicants, together with their staff of engineers or attorneys or architects, a
combined 15 minutes to make any points they wish to make to us that maybe the staff
didn't cover or issues the staff has raised that they can answer. We, then, open it up for
public comment and I will begin first with those who signed up on the sheet in the back,
but even at the end of that I will ask if anybody suddenly thought of something new who
didn't sign up. And we ask you to limit your testimony to three minutes, if you may.
That helps us not go much beyond 1 :00 o'clock in the morning with some of these
longer hearings. The exception to the three minute rule is if there is a spokesman --
and example of that is a president of a homeowners association who is going to come
forward and speak for the association, we give that person ten minutes and, then, ask
other people who have signed up who that person is speaking for to just say I agree
with Joe, so that not everybody is taking time to say the same thing. Certainly, if you
have something new to add, we do want to hear that as well. We also feel that it's very
important, since it was important enough for you to come down tonight, we want to
make sure we hear you and, therefore, we ask that you only speak when you're at the
microphone. That way we hear you and it gets into the record for our recorder and
everybody else is able to hear you as well, which is important. After everybody has
testified -- and we do ask the applicant during that time to have been taking notes and
we ask the applicant to come back again and we give them up to ten minutes to
respond to any issues that have been raised, see if they can solve and satisfy things at
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 19 of 90
that point. We have a handy light system here -- well, and, then, after that, theoretically,
we close the hearing and we deliberate among ourselves and staff and make a
recommendation to City Council, where there will, again, be a hearing and you will be
notified about that the same way you were notified about this one. We have a handy
light system here. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When it goes to
yellow we ask that you start to wrap up. And when it's red your time is up and we ask
that you conclude. We may after that ask you some questions, but we do ask that you
conclude or turn it over to somebody else and that helps us operate in an orderly
manner.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 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 August 4, 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 August 4,2005: 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: That being said, I will open the continued public hearings for AZ 05-026, PP
05-025, and CUP 05-033. All these relate to Hollybrook Subdivision and we said at the
last hearing when we continued it to this that our subject of discussion would be limited
to the narrow area that connects the two halves of the barbell looking thing. We will
only be talking about the center area and modifications to that and that being said we
will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The design that we
are looking at tonight is dated August 23rd -- I received August 23rd. The applicant and
-- excuse me. Something happened to our presentation. The applicant and staff, as
well as the applicant and Weaver Acres neighborhood, have spent extensive time over
the past two weeks in order to bring this presentation to you. And the design that the
applicant has chosen is what is referred to as a chicane, which is a traffic control
measure that ACHD, as well as the applicant, will speak to in greater detail. This brings
the roadway down to 20 feet of paved surface. This is an acceptable method for traffic
calming, but it creates additional problems for the land use and the density issues, as
well as driveways on that section. The applicant -- the applicant's engineer drafted a
rendition for what potentially could happen in there if they lost a couple of lots. And with
this they would take the four lots that would be the width of the chicane and create
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 20 of 90
common driveways at the portions of the chicane that would touch those lots as -- the
chicane, as you can see in front of you -~ I'll point out -- there is the chicane. So, at
these points here and -- actually, this would be flipped around, so it would be these
points here and here -- would be the shared access driveways with side loaded
garages. That would eliminate the backing out concern of staff onto that chicane.
Typically, with a parking lot we require a 25-foot paved drive aisle and that would
address the concerns for the backing out onto that roadway. The section currently
shows 14 lots of approximately 4,400 square feet. As shown in their rendition, they
would have eight lots at 4,800 feet and the four lots would be approximately 5,700 feet.
This was handed to us prior -- just prior to this hearing and staff really hasn't had a good
chance to address this as well as we would like to. The director has stated that she
would like to see more lots with shared accesses and maybe lose another one or two,
however it needed to be accommodated. But, again. this is not addressed in the staff
report and we haven't had the time in order to discuss this. However, staff and the
applicant and the applicant's engineer and ACHD and the neighborhood have spent a
lot of time on this in the past few weeks. At that I believe the applicant has quite an
extensive presentation. Hang on one second.
Canning: Just -- I wanted to make one thing clear, that the reason the applicant has
provided a hand drawn drawing is I met with him at 4:30. It wasn't his fault. We had a
hard time coming up with a good time to meet. We finally did get together this
afternoon. I did recommend he lose four lots there. The intent was to take every third
lot, basically, take three lots, combine them into two, so that all those lots would share
driveways, they would all -- kind of the side of each of those lots would face the road,
rather than the front of them, so that there wouldn't be any backing out on there. And
that's what we had discussed. He was able to do a hand drawing of a portion of that, so
it wasn't what we had talked about previously, but that's why it's hand drawn. It wasn't
the applicant's fault that it's at the last moment, it was as much my fault, but that is what
the idea had been.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Guenther: Questions of staff?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Well, nothing of staff, no. I guess the concern I have here is is that at the -- at our
last hearing one of the main things that we did come away with that we did want to see
that they were going to reduce some lots of this area and I'm a little bit surprised that the
plan that we have got here is really not showing any reduction. I'm glad to hear that it
looks like that they are willing to do that. I'm a little surprised it wasn't done before this
meeting tonight, so, although -- you say they have got a presentation they want to do, I
can anticipate that we are not going to get very far tonight in approval of this, because
I'm going to want to see what they have done and having said that I will be quiet.
Zaremba: I would comment that I like the idea of the shared driveways and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 21 of 90
Moe: Very much so.
Zaremba: -- I actually would envision that for the whole length of this 900 foot section,
because it would cut the number of driveways in half, and as the director said, it may
mean widening a few of the lots and losing one or two more, but I agree with
Commissioner Moe, our take away from the last meeting was that there needed to be
fewer lots along this -- and that was a separate issue from the shape of the street. So,
I'm proposing the applicant to come forward and, then, as we already learned, we do
have Ross Oyen here from ACHD, Ada County Highway District. After the applicant
has completed, he will be the next speaker to discuss what went into the traffic calming
ideas here and, then, we will go on with other public. So, let's begin with the applicant,
please.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As staff did state, we -- at the last
meeting we were -- director -- oh, Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street, Eagle. Sorry. So
excited to get up here and -- as you directed us to, you told us to go back, work with the
neighbors, have another neighborhood meeting, look at the options of trying to make
this strip pleasing to traffic calming to the neighbors, to the developer. It's taken us
quite a lot of time to do that. We have had to meet with the fire district, we looked at the
options of cul-de-sacing both sides, as was suggested by one of the Commissioners.
That was not really supported by ACHD or your staff, but we did look at that. We didn't
have that information at the last meeting. We have also met with the fire department to
find out what they would accept with chokers, with islands, with chicanes, to provide
emergency service for the subdivision. And, then, we have met many times with ACHD,
many different designs back and forth with staff and, finally, had a neighborhood
meeting on Tuesday night to show the results of all the work to the neighbors. We had
27 people show up at the neighborhood meeting. The consensus was that we had
done -- we were told we had done a pretty job of trying to address those. We did not in
that design -- and that's the planning out in front of you and we did submit that I think
last week to staff. Did not show any reduction in lots. We thought that we had done a
good job at calming that traffic and without having to lose lots. Now, I know that a
couple of you did mention reduction in density. Mr. Campbell is here and he'd like to get
up after I'm done and kind of explain to you, again, what -- or I guess explain to you for
the first time what the product is going to be on that strip, because I think it's very
important for you to understand what he's put in there. Now, with regard to what
happened today -- and we did have a couple days where we couldn't get with staff and
try to get this resolved -- a result which Ross, my engineer, sketched out in the lobby a
couple minutes ago, was a reflection of your statrs desire to not have the backing out
into the traffic of those houses and we thought it was appropriate to try that where that
chicane was, because that's, really, the part of the strip that is abnormal from the rest of
a normal street, because of those zigzags and the landscaping there at that. So, that
little sketch that Joe showed up there to you showed the reduction of two lots, the
shared driveway of -- is it four or six? Four lots with shared driveways with those side
entry garages. So, the lots that are along that chicane would not be backing up into
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 22 of 90
traffic where that road does narrow down to try to get you to slow down and the traffic
calming.
Zaremba: Essentially, they would be able to come out of the driveway forward.
Nickel: Exactly. Exactly. The rest of -- the straight part of the subdivision we feel is still
appropriate, because it's still in -- as I spoke at the last meeting, it's still a standard width
roadway. We are only asking for the reduction in the right of way, but the roadway itself
is still a 36-foot roadway, so we still feel that it's appropriate for these houses in the
straight section to be able to back out into traffic in the normal fashion that any other
local street would. So, that's kind of where we are at right now. This did come up the
last minute and we were trying to -- we are trying to get it worked out. So, that's all I
have to say. We can answer some questions and, then, I would like Bond Campbell to
get up here and kind of explain to you the intent of those houses. I think -- we showed
those to the neighbors on Tuesday night and I think that satisfied a lot more than we
expected, because we didn't really have a good presentation at the last meeting on
what those houses were going to be and there was some concerns about rentals and
different things. Safety was a concern. So, I'd like Bond to explain to you a little bit
more. Stand for your questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Borup: So, is this sketch the proposed new lot count or is this still open for new
designs?
Nickel: This is what we are proposing at this time.
Borup: There is 11 lots, instead of 16? That much of a reduction?
Nickel: There was 14 lots along that strip originally -- or at the last meeting. It would be
reduced down to 12, with shared driveways on the lots that -- so a total of 12 in that
strip.
Borup: Oh, one was off the --
Nickel: And as staff stated, the -- eight of the lots would be widened from 55 to 60 feet,
so there would be a total of 4,800 square feet and, then, four lots with the shared
accesses would be 72 foot wide, 5,700 square feet.
Zaremba: Okay. I'll turn it over to -- let's have your other cohorts speak next. This is
within your 15 minutes.
Erickson: Ross Erickson, 1854 Frenetic in Meridian. I just have a few things to add to
what Shawn has already stated. A few of the changes that were made is we actually
widened the roadway from how it was proposed originally to P&Z. The original proposal
was 32 feet back to back of curb and the new design has it at 34 to back of back of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 23 of 90
curb. And, basically, what that allows us to do is have parking on both sides of the
street. The previous submittal only permitted parking on one side and with the addition
of the chicane, there is a couple hundred feet that will be signed no parking. So, I think
that was important to clarify that we did widen the streets, so there will be parking on the
other side of the street from what we had shown in the original submittal. Like Shawn
stated, we worked with the neighbors and ACHD and Meridian to try to come up with
the best fit for a traffic-calming device on this stretch. Looked at a lot of alternatives
from the cul-de-sacs to chicanes to different configurations of chicanes to you name it
and I think everyone feels pretty comfortable. I'm not trying to speak for anybody, but it
feels pretty comfortable. This is probably one of the better fits to calm the traffic along
the stretch. We met with Joe Silva with the fire department and on your plan you see a
stamp that he's approved for access. So, at this point I don't really think there is any
issues with the chicane, other than what Anna had brought up today regarding the
safety for the lots that front the chicane and with those vehicles backing out into the
narrow pavement section, the chicane could be a safety risk. So, that's kind of how this
sketch originated. We figured that if we could side load the garages on the lots that
front the chicane, that's -- you know, that would allow traffic to actually face the drive
when they are coming out and give them a little bit more visibility when they are
accessing the road. And, then, with the two lots that we lost, the other lots increased in
size by five feet and so. Overall the density has gone down a lot on this stretch. So, I
guess I'll stand for any questions anyone has.
Zaremba: Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. I would now ask Mr. Oyen, Ross Oyen,
to come forward. He is from ACHD and I don't want to put you on the spot to either be
in favor or against this project as a whole, but if you are prepared to enlighten us a little
bit about the validity of chicanes and I guess the previous suggestion was a choker,
whether you think this is better than chokers and I'll turn it over to you, sir.
Oyen: Thank you, sir. Commissioners. Ross Oyen, Ada County Highway District. I
think with regard to chicanes in the context of this development, it would appear that
they are a pretty reasonable approach from a technical standpoint and, actually, Mr.
Martin from the highway district is also here and so maybe he will jump in if I misspeak,
but the curve radius through the chicanes is on the order of 100 feet and that equates to
something like a 20 mile per hour design speed with the straight stretches of the
roadway likely being posted at 25 miles per hour, we'd get a nice, but modest reduction
in speed, which is kind of an appropriate thing for traffic measures. And so I think,
technically, it satisfies. The literature that's out there on traffic calming devices would
indicate to us that there is a little bit of benefit that attaches to the chicanes in terms of
speed reduction that you don't necessarily see with chokers and so that is kind of the
principal advantage. The other thing I would note, just by way of contrast, is I have in
front of me some information from the municipality Anchorage, Alaska, and their
indication is that community acceptance tends to be a little bit higher with chokers than
with chicanes. That's a very contextual sort of a matter and certainly in terms of
retrofits; I would expect that to be true, because you tend to lose more parking with
chicanes in retrofit situations than you do with chokers. Choker tend to be applied more
often, actually, at intersections, though they certainly are a valid mid block application
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 24 of 90
as well. So, I think with that I've probably overdone it and I'll just stand for questions
from the Commission.
Zaremba: Thank you. I appreciate your being here and that is enlightening.
Commissioners, do you have questions?
Borup: I don't think I had any questions, maybe just clarification. The letter from Christy
Richardson makes it very clear that ACHD does not approve and was not in favor at all
of making a non-through street. So, I don't know if there is anything you want to add.
Oyen: It's been considered and I think I would just affirm that that's the position of the
highway district at this point.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you very much. I appreciate your time coming
out on this late evening. Okay. We are ready for public testimony and I will go through
the list, but let me begin by asking if there is a spokesman for any of the groups around.
I see one hand raised. Sir, if you would come forward and identify yourself.
Putnam: My name is Hal Putnam. I live at 3454 Curt Drive. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Commission, we did meet with Weaver Acres, the neighbor. Did meet
with the developer and the designers on Tuesday. And the general consensus of the
group that if the property is to be developed at all and if this is something to be
something other than a collector road and we are going to have traffic there and homes
built along there, that this is probably the best solution. The presentation that was made
by the builder Bond, in regards to the type of homes that were going to be built, in
addition, calmed a lot of our concerns with their value and with the type. Our earlier
concerns is that they would be attached, for lack of a better word, duplexes, although
they are called patio homes now, it's still a duplex that that area or that strip would
become homes of transitional type, which we had some real concerns as to what it
might do to the property value that we currently experience and the other concerns that
come with transitional homes. I guess I better put my glasses on, so I can see what I'm
doing. There isn't much representation here from Weaver Acres, so hope they still want
me to be their spokesman. I had one person say they agreed with me. As I indicated,
what is being presented is the best solution, again, if it's going to be developed. We still
have a concern that the proper study has not been done in regards to determine
whether that is going to become a collector road. We were all firm in our belief that it
will be a collector road, that it will probably, in a very short period of time, once the road
is put in, exceed, I believe, the 2,000 daily trip limit that makes it a collector road. I think
even now we could easily determine that there is at least 16 or 17 hundred trips that are
going to occur at ten trips per home and that's without doing any kind of a survey of
Heritage -- the other two subdivisions that will make access to that. Would like to, just
as a matter of clarification on Item No. 11, the request still talks about single-family
attached dwellings. We want them -- we would like to know if the builder and the
developer have changed that application to eliminate those duplexes, because that is a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 25 of 90
big issue. I don't know if Mr. Campbell is going to get up and show you the type of
homes that he plans on building, but if he holds true to his promise to us and his
guarantee to hang onto this property and develop it the way he envisions, it will be a
very nice addition to the City of Meridian, those type of homes, we would -- if it's got to
be developed, this is the way that we would like to see it be developed. We would still
like to address -- and I don't know if we can at this point -- the connection of -- pull up
the Weaver Acre kind of thing, please. And we raised this issue with the Ada County
Highway District. That road's going to run along here and, then, there is going to be a
cutting to Curt Drive right here through this piece of property. And Holly -- I guess it's
Hollybrook Road, will continue on to Curt Drive. We still can't -- we can't see the
reasoning for that connectivity to Curt Drive. ACHD has indicated -- staff has indicated
that it's for future growth. It's for anybody who lives in Weaver Acres who may want to
go up there and visit somebody in Sundance and not having to go out to the main
arterials. It's our understanding that the fire department doesn't have a real big issue
with it. Could be mistake there. But it's not a real big issue. And on the plat that's been
presented, we would, again, request that maybe this cut to Curt Drive be cut off. In fact,
ACHD said that we could come in as a subdivision, Weaver Acres, at a future point and
have this blocked off here. So, connectivity doesn't seem to be a real big concern if
they would let us do that. So, I would like to have that reconsidered. We do appreciate
the fact that the developer did take the time to meet with the neighborhood and just to
reaffirm what I have already said, if the development has to go forward, we would like to
have it done the way the developer presented to us. We did not see the elimination of
the two lots. I don't believe that changes the issue that much and I'll stand for
questions.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Putnam?
Newton-Huckabay: No question, only want to comment that I don't believe that there
will be any recommendations on that cut to Curt Drive. I think we agreed at the last
meeting that -- I, myself, personally would like to see Curt Drive at Ustick, but -- you
said blocked off?
Putnam: Blocked off.
Newton-Huckabay: And with the idea in the future, if possible, a light at Arrowwood
Way. I don't know--
Putnam: Well, there will be the connection to Arrowwood, but we agree, we'd like to see
the traffic that would come into that particular subdivision not be allowed to come into
the subdivision. So--
Zaremba: It would be my assumption that most of the people -- I agree with your
observation that whether it's called a collection or not, this new street is going to
function as a collector.
Putnam: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 26 of gO
Zaremba: And I don't see that it would be that useful for people to cut that little corner
around Curt. I think most people, Curt -- I think most people will use the new street, but
if your street -- if Curt were cul-de-sac'd at the south end at some time, then, ACHD
probably would consider even a signal at this new street and that, I think, would benefit
everybody, possibly. Certainly make left turns out of there easier than they would be at
the moment. So, I think in our previous discussion we didn't support the elimination of
that little cross-connector. But we certainly appreciate your other comments and
appreciate your comment.
Putnam: Well, just to point out an observation of many neighbors that lived -- that have
-- what was pointed out to me in -- sorry to contradict you, in regards to people taking
that cut, this subdivision right in here, which is now developed, okay, you will see this
little road that comes in here with the connection that comes into the Arrowwood
Subdivision, they need to post a police officer out there, because as people down Ustick
Drive -- or Ustick Road at 40 miles an hour and they get about right there and traffic is
starting to back up at this four way stop, I have seen on numerous occasions people
take that, not going to this subdivision that's there now, but to go on into Arrowwood
almost on two wheels on a regular basis. So, the contention is that people come down
here and get to this four way stop -- or as traffic builds up and it gets back to this point,
they are going to be making this cut like that at very high speeds.
Zaremba: Well, I do see the possibility.
Putnam: Anything's possible. Again, just read from what I said, if the development has
to go forward, we have looked at the cul-de-sacs, we are somewhat convinced that
because of the turning ratio and the radius that the fire trucks need, so forth, that the
cul-de-sacs don't work. We like the idea that was presented, as long as the developer
and the builder, Mr. Campbell, holds to his promise and guarantee that those will be
very upscale homes on -- very well done. They will be two story, but they will be nice
homes, so--
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, sir. I will now proceed down the -- was there anybody
else who was a representative of the other neighborhoods? Okay. I assume that
everybody else is speaking individually. If Mr. Putnam spoke for you, would you just
wave your hand and we will -- when I call your name, if you were signed up. And let's
go with Florence Whittaker.
Whittaker: Good evening. My name is Florence Whittaker. I live at 3378 North Weston
in the Sundance Community. At this point I feel I'm the reason for the last minute
changes, because this afternoon Ross, the engineer, came by my house with this plat
with our subdivision included on the site so we could see where our houses fell amongst
these other houses that they plan on building and I mentioned to him about how are
these cars supposed to back out into this 20-foot calming area and I made note of how
big a vehicle was and I also made note of like how big a bus was and how long a
vehicle is when it does back out and I feel at this point that I am the reason for those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 27 of 90
last minute changes and I have some photos here that I'd like to submit of this strip of
land in the back of what it looks like from my house. You all can see for yourself.
Zaremba: Start those with the clerk, if you would, please. Thank you.
Whittaker: I feel that this strip of land, which has been a constant battle for the last
couple of months, is too small to put all this congestion in and we are talking now two
story homes, a 44 foot street that now is going to a 20 foot street -- all these other
streets up in these communities are all 50 feet wide. I don't understand how you can
have this amount of traffic cutting through all these communities, cutting through this
narrow strip of land to hook up to Ustick, it just seems like it's just way too much for this
small area. I'm very concerned about the safety of the children, the amount of traffic,
the congestion, these homes built on top of our fence -- literally on top of our fences.
These pieces of property are only going to be 55, 80 feet wide and now all of a sudden
we are going to change with houses are going to be on bigger pieces of property and it's
too narrow for all this. Way too narrow. I'm sorry. If you would like to show the
pictures, I would really like you to see what the --
Zaremba: We are passing them around.
Whittaker: That's a view from my house and also from my back fence. It's just an awful
lot of stuff to try to cram into this little space.
Zaremba: Your fence is the wooden fence --
Whittaker: Yes.
Zaremba: -- and you're indicating the distance is to the chain link fence.
Whittaker: Yes. Where are children going to play on this -- you know, if they ride their
bikes where are they going to -- what happens if someone parks in the street? I
mentioned that also. Are these people allowed to have visitors? That's all I have to
say. Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Letha Quinn. And I'd like to thank
everybody who printed. I can get the names this time. I appreciate that.
Quinn: Thank you. My name is Letha Quinn. I live at 456 East Patagonia in also the
Sundance Community. And, honestly, I have to tell you that we are at a little bit at a
loss here, because -- I mean we have heard about the discussions with the
neighborhoods. We were notified of the neighborhood meeting only just a few days
before Tuesday. At that point we -- I was unable to go, but we did send representatives
from our subdivision that went. They came back with a plan that you see here. This
one. And as we look at that plan, of course, we are disturbed, because it doesn't look
like any changes really significantly have been made. But two lots were lost, but the
reality of the issues that we discussed at the last meeting were still not addressed. It's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 28 of 90
still a collector road, it functions as that, and we have only reduced it by two house
sizes. So, this new information that they have given with the -. it's called a chicane, is
new to us. I think it's a good start towards something, but at this point I think it's just not
going to be enough. The reality is if you look at that piece of land -- when the developer
bought that piece of land, he had to have recognized that it's just an unusual shape and
to me it is unreasonable to actually even think about developing that area. The reality is
it's a collector road, it will function as that, it should function as a developed area. I am
the house right -- it's next to Mrs. Whittaker just at the bottom -- if I can figure out how to
use this. Right in there. And so I got this whole -- the whole road there. I understand
when the highway department was talking about technically certain setbacks would
work. I just really wonder about the practicality of it. I think the chicanes start to work
towards the practicality of it as far as not having cars back out, but I would think every
house not just those four houses that they have proposed in that one chicane area, I
don't have that -- but all the houses along that road, if there is like -- if they are going to
be developed, which I actually believe there shouldn't be a development, other than a
road put there -- all the houses should be able to face forward, drive out, and there will
be places to park along there. Otherwise, we are just going to have a real issue with
traffic safety concerns. Let's see. I am concerned about the fact that there seemed to
have an apparent discussion that took place with the Weaver community, but it really
didn't take place with the Sundance community. So, just to let you know. Any
questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Quinn: Thank you.
Zaremba: Sally Alexander.
Alexander: My name is Sally Alexander. I live at 3360 North Weston Avenue, also in
the Sundance Subdivision, which everybody before me mentioned a lot of the same
concerns that I have. One concern that I have as well is with the traffic that's going to
back up on this road is the air quality and I do child care in my home and the kids are
going to be in the backyard and there is going to be backed up traffic and I'm not going
to want the kids out there breathing all that exhaust in the backed up traffic. I just -- I
can't imagine how much traffic it's going to get. I mean I sit there on Ustick just trying to
get into the entrance to our subdivision for astronomical amounts of time sometimes
and everybody who is trying to get into any of those areas is going to cut through there.
And I think it needs to be a wider road, if there is going to be a road there, without a
bunch of houses crowding it. That's what I have to say.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Linda Roberts. Oh. Okay. Mr. Putnam spoke for
you. Thank you very much. Ron Roberts. Okay. Mr. Putnam spoke for you and you
agree with what he said. Okay. Thank you. Tony Cook.
Pierce: Tony Pierce, 33842 North Weston and definitely agree with the ladies here.
Point out a couple things. We are taking on the term collector and if we break it down,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 29 of 90
we have all these houses up here in the future development; it's a collector in my
opinion. And also as we are adding houses here, if we subdivide these lots, you're
going to have additional traffic backing into here this way. So, that's a future
consideration also. So, it just seems like we are putting too much into too narrow of an
area. So, thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Jody Turk. Okay. She has been spoken for. Let's see. I
missed Kathy Sherman.
Sherman: Kathy Sherman, 3458 Weston Way in the Sundance development. I'm just
wondering what kind of standards we are setting for Meridian if we are allowing -- this
has, obviously, been thrown around as a collector street. It falls under the definition of a
collector street. I don't see why you should let houses on the collector street if that's,
technically, what it is, with all the traffic. And my other concern, too, is Ustick. I mean
the plans are to be widened, but when? By ten years? I mean we already cannot get
into our subdivision as is. So, my main concern is like the ladies had said is if it is a
collector street, then, it should be served. There should be no exception to the rules. It
should stay consistent and we shouldn't want City of Meridian to be just -- you know,
because they are already asked for reduces in lot sizes, you know, why should we allow
houses to be shoved anywhere? All it's gong to do is create more traffic. So, if you
have any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thanks. Last one signed up is Joe -- starts with
an S. It may be Joe Sly. Is there somebody with a name similar to that?
Shole: Joe Shole, 3476 North Weston in the Sundance. My -- at the last meeting there
weren't a lot of representatives from Sundance and I think the reason -- it was probably
an accident we got a letter mailed to us without a date, so when I got back into town on
Monday we realized there is a meeting Tuesday, and I just want to clarify that. Other
than that, I agree with what's been said. That's about it.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. That's everybody who signed up. Is there anybody who
didn't sign up who has thought of something that you must add? Sir, come forward and
state your name, please.
Funkhouser: My name is Shawn Funkhouser. I do live at 3644 North Pistato, but I am
also a representative of Bond Campbell. I am helping him with some of the marketing
of the area and everything else. I agree -- as you were throwing around the thing of it
being a collector street, with the serpentine road going through, though, it's not going
through all the way into the subdivision. So, as far as it really being a collector street,
it's putting traffic into the actual subdivision of Sundance. I don't see how that would be
-- present a problem with Ustick. Additionally, it can be backed up, but that's going to
happen anyways, because that piece of land is going to be developed, whether it be
houses, whether it be an apartment complex, whether it be a shopping mall, it's going to
be developed. I think it would help the property, the value of Meridian, and the
community as a whole, to have the development that Bond Campbell likes to do, does
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 30 of 90
do, and does well. His homes bring value to a subdivision, as well as to the
subdivisions that are around the area. I have nothing else to really add to that, except
the fact that I do believe in this product and I do believe that he builds a good home, he
builds a nice home, and he does increase the value of properties in neighborhoods in
the area. And that's alii can say.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there has been quite a bit of testimony about the product
types, but just so the record's clear, we have not seen any yet. You have been asked if
we could. I just want to make sure, because someone reading the minutes ten years
from now, that we haven't seen anything yet.
Zaremba: Okay. I don't know if you have anything to show, but it's the opportunity for
Mr. Nickel to come back up and --
Campbell: Hello, Commissioner, Members of the Commission. Bond Campbell, 2948
South Mal, Bear Creek Subdivision. I do have some product to show. I have put
together a nice presentation of what that product will be along that strip, since that strip
seems to be the huge bone of contention, so I think that the other night, Tuesday night,
at the neighborhood meeting, which the folks at Sundance were all invited, and some of
them did show up -- some of them that are here tonight did show up. I felt like we did a
really good job of calming the fears of the neighbors of Weaver Acres at least and I
think you can see that tonight by the fact that all of them that were here last time are not
here tonight. So, I think what I should do is go through this with you as I went through
this with them and you can see for yourselves what the product will be.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before he proceeds --
Zaremba: I would make a comment and I believe this is what Mr. Nary is going to say.
This should have been presented at the original 15 minutes to give the public time to
respond to it. The period now is for responding to what the public brought up.
Borup: I think Mr. Nickels said that that would be in -- and you went onto the public
testimony before they had a chance.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I'm sorry. I -- Mr. Nary.
Nary: The other issue, though, is my recollection at the start of this hearing you
indicated the only reason this matter was set over was for the roadway. Not for the
design, not for the houses, not for the other information that now this appears to want to
address. So, if you set it over for one purpose, if you want to reopen the Public
Hearing, I think you are going to have to rehear at least if anyone else has any other
information, but you did only continue this Public Hearing for one purpose. If it's going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 31 of 90
to relate to your roadway discussion -- if you think that it's going to relate to your
roadway discussion, but that was alii believe you said at the outset of this hearing was
this was only regards to the roadway. So, if this is only regarding the roadway, then,
that may be relevant, but it sounded to me like before Mr. Campbell started this was a
general presentation on the project of the buildings and --
Campbell: But I think it does speak to the roadway very specifically, because the
product -- because of the specific-ness of the product and the elements of the roadway
in this narrow strip.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: If you can make that connection, I would be interested.
Campbell: I can definitely make that connection.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: That's exactly what I have been waiting to hear. I do want to understand what the
product is, so that I can --
Campbell: And I would also like to clarify --
Moe: -- a lot to do with the roadway.
Campbell: I would also like to clarify that this has not been before in the past, because
we did not know what we were going to end up with here for lots.
Zaremba: And there has been --
Campbell: I'm finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel enough to have a
vision to give to the staff based on this back and forth, the chicanes and curves in the
roads and the islands and all the previous discussion, I've tried to -- and I have spelled
that out for the neighborhood was how can I design something for what I don't know
what I'm going to end up with, so--
Zaremba: So that we don't lose all procedure, as it relates to the roadway and if you
can make the connection, please do, but we will have you proceed, but I do think to be
fair, before we have Mr. Nickel do the final conclusion, I will ask the audience, even if
they have spoken, to maybe have another minute.
Campbell: Well, also, I would add to that that the neighborhood again was invited to
this presentation. So, I think they have seen this. But those that chose to show up
have seen this.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 32 of 90
Campbell: And would have -- and this was mentioned tonight in Mr. Putnam's remarks.
Zaremba: Please proceed.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Maybe -- so pursuant to what Mr. Nary said, if we just -- it might be appropriate
to maybe skip some of the preliminaries and go to the design and, then, that would
apply directly to the roadway, would be consistent with --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Campbell: Then, we are going to want to skip forward here, because the first part of
this presentation is, essentially, means to layout how to get my ability to demonstrate
the value and the quality of this project. So, if we just fast-forward through this portion
until we get to the actual vision for the type of product on that narrow strip.
Guenther: This is working as fast as this computer will let it.
Campbell: Okay. These are large photograph files and I think that it does tend to slow
it down a little bit. Four more slides to go here. Okay. This is -- this is the site right
here. This is the narrow strip. Those old houses -- oh, back up, Joe. Those are the
houses along the fence line in Sundance. That is the fence that represents the border
between the narrow strip and the homes in Weaver Acres. The roadway would go right
through here. Another photographs depicting the Weaver Acres side. The Sundance
side. The Weaver Acres side. More of the narrow strip. Okay. This is the chicane that
we are looking at, the strip. One more, Joe. Okay. This is a visual representation of
one of the homes along that narrow strip. Another here. A two story. Unfortunately,
these pictures are pretty dark. Okay. One more, Joe. And, then, stop there for a
second, please. This is one of the floor plans. You can see -- kind of hard to read here,
but this house would -- the dimensions of this home are 35 feet wide by 51 feet deep.
It's 2,400 square feet and fits easily on those lots. The value of this home will be in the
neighborhood of 300,000 dollars. This is another one that is 30 or 40 feet wide by 46
foot deep, Again, easily fits on those lots. And this one is 30 -- I think that's an eight.
Thirty-eight by thirty-nine is the overall dimensions. Sixteen hundred square feet. Two
hundred and thirty thousand for 1,644 square feet. To wrap it up -- let's go back, Joe.
We went through that about ten times faster than I went through it with the
homeowners, but I think -- and it may have been hard for you to get an actual vision
what that street is going to look like, but I would like to point out that, obviously, is a
creative strip and it's going to take a creative mind to develop it and make it look
appropriate. I think that what I got through to the neighbors was that the site limitations
create an opportunity. I kept these lots, when I sold all the rest. I think that says
something about these particular lots. My vision for this strip is that it's going to be very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 33 of 90
appealing, not because of its narrowness, but because it's going to be unique, it's going
to have an old world row house, that chicane is going to create a canopy that goes clear
cross the roadway, similar to a Harrison Boulevard, to a Warm Springs Avenue. Those
houses are going to have front elevations that are going to go along those lines. Those
homes being at 300,000 dollars for that square footage are going to fall into a category
of an upper end buyer, not a lower end buyer. They are going to allow people to have --
this is key -- a lower maintenance and energy savings in a smaller package, but at an
upgraded finish. So, the person that wants the granite and wants the wolf package and
wants the things that I put in my homes, can now afford it, because this will be the first
time I have built something under 800,000 dollars in three years, but it will have those
same elements in it. So, hopefully, that dispels the myth that these homes are going to
end up being flipped through and transients living in them, as was stated in our last P&Z
meeting. So, that goes directly to the street and the narrowness of the street and the
amount of parking along the street. If you're going to effectively create that row house,
you're going to effectively create that road with trees growing canopy clear across,
you're going to have to have the houses closer together. If I take these 14 lots and I
change it to ten and I make them 70 feet wide, instead of 55 feet wide, now instead of
having a row house look, it's going to have a small house with 30 feet between it to the
next house and I think you have completely taken away that design element, because I
can't go any deeper, so I can't make them -- I can't make wide, shallow houses two
story and give them a row look if I can't keep the number of lots. I do agree with Anna
that we shouldn't probably try to back cars into the chicane. That's why I had Ross
draw a plan that showed those chicane lots being shared driveways, with the row house
look on either end to anchor it in. At this point I think I would just take questions. I don't
know if I have missed anything. I'm sure I have, but, hopefully, I have clarified what the
product will be and the value and the nicety of -- one thing I did leave out for those
homes was those houses are going to have a security and a privacy feel that your
average single family home on a large residential lot won't have. And if you look at new
construction in Eagle right now, row houses down Paddy Row, Alderwood Subdivision,
Roth is doing a lot of them. They have a privacy, they have a feel of security, and I
think that's the market that I want to approach with this product. So, I would like to
entertain questions prior to you guys commencing on your back and forth, because I
know after the last meeting there was a lot of things that went in your back and forth that
I felt like I could have been involved in that discussion and, obviously, it doesn't work
that way. So, please, ask all the questions that you think might come up in your back
and forth.
Zaremba: Thank you. Pictures certainly help. Commissioners, questions?
Borup: I think the only question I have is some clarification and that's on Mr. Putnam's
comment on attached housing and I don't know -- was that in the original application? I
looked back through mine and I missed it, but --
Campbell: Mr. Borup, it was -- it was discussed in the original application for an
attached patio style home and this is a modification to that original application. The
single family detached row house; there is a modification from that original application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 34 of 90
Borup: Earlier in the presentation you said attached and detached.
Campbell: We are definitely now shooting for detached and I did make a promise to Mr.
Putnam that I would build the quality that I demonstrated in this presentation and as I
expressed to him that I'm keeping these lots and I'm building these lots and I'm not
selling these lots. That is still my contention and I would stand by that.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just kind of going back through the information from last time, I am kind of
curious, because you are looking to do a PD on those lots; is that correct?
Campbell: We are asking to be able to put them --
Moe: What were the amenities on the two outside lots going to be? I can't seem to find
the landscape drawing to recognize that.
Campbell: We intend on having, obviously, a lot of landscaping in those common
areas, as well as a pathway that winds through the common area. I don't feel that this
neighborhood is a tot lot neighborhood or some of the other amenities that are,
essentially, laid out to me through the PD development. I can. envision more places to
stop and sit under a tree and have a picnic. So, a pathway with some areas to stop and
just enjoy that area would be my contention for those, especially with the -- I feel that
these homes will be sold to people probably 40 and up through this narrow strip.
Moe: I'm not sure you really told me exactly what -- I kind of wanted to know the
amenities themselves.
Campbell: This area and this area would have a walkway pathway that winds through
them, with areas to stop -- like possibly under a gazebo or under a tree with a concreted
area or a pavered area where there would be a table.
Moe: So, there would be a gazebo, then?
Campbell: Well, you know, we have a landscape design. I don't know if the staff has a
landscape design, but I did ask the landscape architect to incorporate a gazebo into one
of these two common areas. Whether or not she has it drawn in the current landscape
design or not, I do not know.
Zaremba: I would comment for the audience that the depiction that is being projected is
from an older landscape plan and this is before the roadway and the houses were
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 35 of 90
reversed and this is not what we are making our decision on, we are just discussing
landscape stuff, which is on this drawing.
Campbell: Also would add to that, because we added islands and because we added
the chicane, when we did that, we added addition landscaping -- actually, quite a bit of
additional landscaping, because now the islands will be landscaped and that chicane is
taking -- all of that that we lose in the roadway by going from 34 or 36 feet to 20 feet,
become, essentially, landscaping. And that's how you created that canopy of trees in
the chicane that grows up and over and makes that canopy on that section of road,
which is a pretty substantial section of road through that middle section. So, I would
almost consider that myself, personally as the developer, as an amenity. But if you
would like me to say tonight that I will put a gazebo in one of those two ends, I certainly
will, because that was my intention from the beginning. If that answers your question.
Moe: Somewhat. Basically, just, again, like the last hearing, my biggest concern is the
lot sizes there for an R-8 are requiring some, you know, planned development, you
know, amenities in there and that's what I just want to verify what we have got. I'm still
very concerned about the size of lots. I understand what you're speak to with the
design of the home and why you to keep it in that range. If, in fact, I'm going to look at
that, I also want to know the amenities that the city is going to be able to see what within
the rest of that planned development area.
Campbell: Sure. And on that note, again, I would like to just go back to --
Moe: And just one other -- I'm not the one that wants to tell you what to put there, I just
-- you need to let us know what you're proposing to do.
Campbell: Right. And, hopefully, my vision of those homes and being an older crowd
and the security and the privacy element, lends itself to private pathways, walkways,
whatever you want to call them, through those -- rather than just a big grass swale. I
don't envision a big grass swale. I envision dramatically more landscaping than you
have seen in all the other city swales and a pathway that actually meanders through
there and doesn't just -- not just a concrete strip that meanders through there, but
landscaping along the strip with a place to stop and enjoy an afternoon picnic. That's, to
me, a more usable amenity than a -- I don't know, a basketball court in the bottom one,
when the houses around it are four and five and up and the average person that lives in
there is say 45 to 50 years old.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I think my remaining concern you addressed, but I'm still not quite sure on
your side on it. I feel along that whole length -- the whole 900 foot or so length that is
our major concern tonight, particularly now that we know there is parking on both sides
of the street, to have cars back out of driveways between parked cars into a roadway is
very uncomfortable to me. Director Canning mentioned to me earlier that two houses
sharing a common driveway and, therefore, having a potential of driving out of their
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 36 of 90
driveway forward, she said that was an idea that seemed to be coming. That is
attractive to me along the whole length. For one, it makes half the number of
driveways. And, two, it gets people driving out forward when they are going to have to
come out between the cars and -- between parked cars and enter this roadway and
even along the whole length of this to accomplish that you probably would only have to
lose one more lot and my question to you is that impossible, if we made that a
requirement?
Campbell: I don't see the value -- I'm sorry, but I don't see the value of losing lots,
because the vision is for row houses close together, security, privacy -- we can
accomplish that with shared driveways, if that's a requirement.
Zaremba: Well, let me ask that way. Could you do shared driveways without increasing
the width of the -- except where the chicane is. I think you have done what needs to be
done there. But on the other portions of it, north and south of it, could you do shared
driveways without widening each lot?
Campbell: I certainly think we could.
Zaremba: Would you be willing to have that a --
Campbell: I would be willing to look at it with my engineer and find out if we can
accomplish both things, because it's still important to me to accomplish that look, as well
as provide the security that we are not backing out onto that roadway.
Zaremba: Pictures speak volumes. I appreciate that. But it does appear that's going to
be a very nice product and, I agree, I don't want to really mess with that, because I see
you have a vision and the vision that you're presenting is attractive to me as well. I just
am scared about having cars back out into this roadway and if there is shared
driveways into the same lot width, I don't --
Campbell: I think the focus is more the concern of people being able to drive forward
onto the roadway versus trying to make these lots 150 feet wide and plopping a 30 foot
wide house in the middle of it. I think we can accomplish that.
Zaremba: Okay. That makes me happier. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions. I just want to comment -- I know I was
one of the voices definitely not in favor of this development. Or this section of it. I still --
I have to agree with most of the public, I think it's a very awkward piece of land, but
knowing that it's going to be developed, I have been thinking what is it going to look --
you know, what will look nice. I agree with you, your plan for row houses, there seems
to be a demand for that in the valley, people like that, it looks nice. I like the chicane
idea much better than I liked the traffic pincher idea and I think for the most part I think
I'm fundamentally in favor of the changes compared to what we had before. Ultimately,
I would prefer not to see this strip of property develop until the Weaver Acre property is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 37 of 90
redeveloped at some point, but, you know, I wanted -- you don't get what you want, so--
but I -- to agree with Mr. Putnam, if it's going to develop, I think you have a good plan
and I like the change in the roadway and -- but also I would have liked to have seen a
landscape plan tonight and so future --
Campbell: I think if we could get to where we are going, we could certainly focus on the
landscape plan and make that a part of our City Council meeting. I'm sorry that you
couldn't be involved it, but I'm still not certain that we are at where we are headed with
these lots and that makes it difficult for me to -- I'm on my fifth or sixth or seventh, I don't
know, design here. And so I hate to get too involved in the further elements, other than
preliminary, until we can discuss or get to a point where we are actually talking about
what we are going to end up with and that is -- the only reason why I would say that
landscape could come next, if we could -- if we could get to the point where we agree
on the chicane, because even the chicane is a huge landscape element.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my -- so my only comment is I -- is this -- as this change goes
I'm in favor of this change to get this development moving, if it's going to -- and I think --
and I think that it will -- I think traffic will be slowed down substantially through there with
the chicane and, then, the fact that it's right in the middle, so we have got, essentially,
300 feet on each side of it.
Campbell: I would like to comment that I think it's even hard to look at that two
dimensional plan and envision how much that will impact the way that strip feels,
because as it's been pointed out to me, when you stand at one end or the other of that
chicane and you look down it, you will see about a four foot strip of asphalt. Other than
that, you will see trees on both sides. And I don't see people driving up to that chicane
at any rate of speed, when all they can see is a four foot strip and I would honestly
believe that if another car is coming, that individual is almost probably going to feel like
they are going to have to stop and let that car come through before they go through.
So, I'm definitely in favor of that, because I do think it will slow that traffic dramatically on
that strip and as a developer and holder of those pieces and marketer of that product, I
want to see that strip be a slow driven strip.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just to follow up on something you said -- or
Commissioner Moe. I can't remember now. It's getting late already. The Commission
may want to consider asking to see -- or having the applicant at least provide Council
with footprints of how these would fit on that, including the garages and how folks would
take front access. Shared drives aren't enough, it's important that they have side
access garages and move along with the shared driveway. So, that may be something
the Commission may want to ask for. Because these are small lots and not much
wiggle room, it would be important to see that it does work.
Zaremba: Okay. I think along those lines, now that I'm looking at the hand wrought
depiction, what was originally more lots, if that is now 12 lots, if you're saying you can
work it out so that's six driveways -- in other words, Lots 1 and 2 would share a
driveway. Three and four would share a driveway. Five and six you're already showing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 38 of 90
Seven and eight you're already showing. Nine and ten would share a driveway. Eleven
and twelve would share a driveway. And, then, provide renderings as Director Canning
has asked.
Campbell: I could concur that and I would also make comment that I wouldn't design
shared driveways without side entry access. So, if we are ultimately going that
direction, I would definitely have side entry garages.
Zaremba: Which gets the cars coming out of the driveway forward, which is sort of what
the goal is.
Campbell: Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we can say we have gone that direction?
Zaremba: That would be a requirement as far as I'm concerned. Other people feel for
or against?
Borup: I don't know if I'm completely against, but I don't know that it's necessary -- and
we are talking four driveways difference. The other concern I would have -- and I think
Mr. Campbell, I think, in his designs can handle this, but you are limiting yourself on the
variety of design when they are -- every one of them there is, you know, a side entry. I
mean those are really the best designs as far as the esthetics of a house, but you may
be limited on the variety and, you know, some of the homes they showed us are
representative of what they plan on doing, but we won't get those same effects.
Zaremba: The only comment I would make to that is part of the reason for putting the
roadway on the east side of this project is the thought that maybe some day the Weaver
Acres people would split up their properties and there would be another row of houses
taking access. I think precedent on this side of the street of only having six driveways
would give us a leg up if that does develop of saying, no, you can't each have a
driveway and you have got to limit it as well, so that the total roadway --
Borup: Well, I don't have a problem with a difference of one more. But -- so I think that
would be, in my mind, up to the developer if that's the way he wanted to go. That would
be fine. I don't know why it would be necessary. A comment earlier was made on the
landscaping. The one that we do have shows -- I mean the common area and
amenities in the landscaping plan shows -- you know, the landscaping trees and shrubs,
pathways and park benches is what we have in the current one. And that he stated, I
guess, that we are going to add a gazebo somewhere.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you for your presentation. And, then, I must say in fairness,
since this originally -- it was a mistake that this was not part of the original applicant's
statement. Is there anybody, even if you already spoke, that cares to respond to just
what was shown here? Mr. Putnam, come ahead, please. And I won't put an official
time limit on it, but as brief as you can be.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 39 of 90
Putnam: I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. When this project first started, I didn't
think I would be at a point where I was in support of the builder and I'm supporting what
he's doing here. I agree with Commissioner Borup in that four more driveways is not
going to make a difference. If you're concerned about four driveways, should be a
collector road with nobody backing onto it. You know, the traffic is going to be bad
enough as it is. Four driveways isn't going to make a difference. And our concern from
the very beginning was -. were two issues. The traffic that was going to be established.
We have come a long way in changing what the original plan was, flipping the road to
the other side, putting curves at each end, the chicane -- we feel somewhat comfortable
with that. And the other issue was the -- was the density, the type of homes that were
going to be built, I feel confident, particularly now that we have had the builder on record
that he's promised to build these kind of homes. I think we feel pretty comfortable with
those. And retaining the value of our current property. And I happen to have visited
with everybody that lives along that west end of Weaver Acres and they have no plans
to sell off their acreage for future development. And I think Mr. and Mrs. Roberts would
probably confirm that. So, if there are no questions I will conclude at this point.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any of the other speakers care to add something? Come ahead, sir.
Funkhouser: Mr. Chairman, again, I am also marketing Ida Pro Land Management,
which is --
Zaremba: Would you state your name again, please?
Funkhouser: I'm sorry. Shawn Funkhouser, address 3644 North Pasada. And I am
also marketing the Idaho Pro Land Management, which will be doing the landscaping
for the whole subdivision, everything else, and I do know with his work and with the
trees going over the serpentine road where the chinook is and everything else, it will
alleviate the traffic flow and everything else, because it will give it that closed-in feeling
to where you won't feel it, you can go as fast as you want to go. It will make you want to
slow down, I think. I have worked with him in the past and under projects he's done.
One thing -- one project I can point out that he's done here, just in Meridian, is the
Lakes over there where the new Hastings is, Fairview Lakes where the new Hastings is,
that was one of his developments -- one of his landscaping projects. So, as far as
meeting with Bond's development, upscale look landscaping ideas, I do believe that the
landscape we have also working for him would be able to meet with that safety that
you're looking for as far as the serpentine or of the chinook and keep the traffic moving
at a slow rate. I have nothing else to say, unless you have any other questions.
Zaremba Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 40 of 90
Funkhouser: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any other speakers care to -- okay.
Pierce: I'm Jody Pierce, 3342 North Weston Avenue and I was at that meeting on
Tuesday. First of all, I would like to state that the letters that were told to be sent out to
let everyone know were only sent to the people who attended the last meeting and
signed. We had several neighbors who attended the meeting, but their names were not
on the list and they never received notification of that meeting. So, I went around and
told a lot of people about tonight's meeting, so that people could be here. Additionally,
there was -- at that discussion of what the landscaping was going to look like. We were
told on the second end of where there was those two storm drains -- there was
supposed to be a tot lot at the further end. That was never mentioned and it was
specifically said tonight that it was not a playground type community. So, that's another
contradiction. And another thing that was said at that meeting were several people
were joking about splitting their lots in Weaver Acres and talking about what they were
going to do and there was a lot of discussion about that. So, the fact that nobody was
going to do that, that was mentioned just a couple speakers ago, that was discussed on
Tuesday night. Not that anybody was doing it then, because it's against our association
rules. But it was mentioned several times by several people that night. That's alii have
to say.
Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you.
Quinn: My name is Letha Quinn and I guess just speaking -- listening to the meeting,
I'm left a little bit confused and I think -- I feel nervous, because I have heard a lot of
ideas tonight, none of which was actually seen on paper, except for this, and so I'm not
sure how the whole process works, but I guess just from our perspective, it feels
uncomfortable to sit and wonder, okay, we have heard there is gong to be a gazebo,
there is not going to be a gazebo, there is going to be a house or what exactly is the
chicane going to look like, and I have seen a lot of the developer's work and, he's right,
these are beautiful homes, I don't have a question at all with the homes. But I'm
concerned as what exactly, by the time this is all said and done, is actually going to be
there? And so that's just my concern.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I would just comment that we share that and I believe that's what
Director Canning was getting at, that I have the feeling that we may continue this again
and ask for the final drawings, but I also understand the developer's -- there has been
enough in flux and different opinions from our Commission, our staff, ACHD -- it costs
them money to make final drawings and I understand why they haven't until now, but I'm
assuming that our direction tonight will be we will continue this one more time and have
the absolute final word the next time. I'm not speaking for everybody, we will get to that
during our discussion, but -- anybody else from the audience? I'll start over here and
we will -- Mrs. Roberts after you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 41 of 90
Shole: I just had one concern --
Zaremba: State your name again, please.
Shole: Joe Shole, 3476 North Weston. I just wanted to say, like where they are talking,
just see a final -- where are the garages going to be exactly on the lot, how that's going
to work. But the developer brought up that these are going to be like a security home
for older -- older couples -- not that old, but if they are just couples, why would they want
a 2,400 square foot house? I mean you can fit a smaller house on that lot, if that's the
direction that they want to present it to with security and somewhat older couples,
whatever. But just something I noticed that a 2,400 square foot house for a couple,
that's a pretty big house. Maybe something smaller would work.
Moe: I guess I would anticipate if someone wanted to buy it and they could pay for it,
they will sell it. Even if they are 20.
Roberts: Linda Roberts, 3525 Curt Drive. I have been on Curt Drive for almost 30
years. We bought our home new. We are one of the homes that are -- that are on the
roadway. I've spent a lot of time and a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought about it,
because these guys talk about losing their -- you know, things in their backyard. Well, I
now look at -- where I had a beautiful sunset, I know have a two story red house that's
looking out into my backyard. So, it's all relative. It's all where you're at. We
understand and we know -- I think everybody in this subdivision -- and Hal has spoken
to it -- we know that it's coming and we know it has to happen, so what we want is the
very best product that we can have. As an owner of the acre, I hear comments thrown
around about selling the acre and I have made the comment myself, okay, we will
subdivide it off. Then, when I stop and think about having that acre for all these years
and having to look at someone 150 feet away from me, it's like, no, I think I'll just keep
my acre, but when I sell my acre, I'm going to go to a 2,400 square foot home on a
small lot, so I don't have so much land. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. Now we will give Mr. Nickel a final word. And
he will respond to some of the things that have been raised and make a conclusion.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel again. And thanks,
Mr. Nary, for the flexibility. I, actually, recognized that the chairman didn't give us the
time we needed and so I told Mr. Campbell that this is our rebuttal, so go up there and
use your presentations as part of rebuttal. It ended up that we got extra time, so I thank
you for that. I do understand the neighbors' concerns and not to pick on our
distinguished guest from ACHD, but I think they started this whole thing and they have
made this very difficult, because before we -- when we first started laying out this
project, we went to the highway district and we said, okay, what type of roadway system
do you want here. This road is not a collector. This road is a local street. The highway
district has done an analysis based on everything surrounding Sundance, Heritage,
Ustick Road -- they determined it was a local street. So, every time I hear you got a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 42 of 90
collector here, it is not a collector. There is going to be a lot of traffic on it, but it is not a
collector. We need to go by the analysis that our professional traffic agency has given
us. We don't question Central District Health when they tell us how to do septic
systems or sewage systems, so why are we questioning ACHD? This is a local street.
The roadway we designed is a proper width to handle traffic. So, my client has
committed to doing the shared driveways. I think it's a good idea and he will commit to
that and I want you to put that as a condition of approval. But I guess to just rebut the
neighbors and -- this is a local street. It's not a collector. If it was a collector, if we were
told it was a collector from the very beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation,
it would be one big road going north and south with no lots. But, as it is, it's a local
street. We do have the ability to front houses on there. They are not as deep as normal
1 DO-foot deep lots are. Mr. Campbell has been up here and has explained to you what
type of product he had. We have done the chicane. So, I think we have done a great
job at trying to develop this skinny little piece that probably shouldn't be developed, but
it is and we are going to make it work. As far as the conditions of approval, we have
gone to a lot of meetings. We prefer to be moved on tonight with a recommendation for
approval. So, with that we will agree to the conditions of -- that was stated by Mr.
Campbell and by myself and by Ross Erickson on the shared driveways along those 12
lots. We will reduce the number by two and Mr. Campbell will agree to a gazebo. The
original application that I submitted, as far as my analysis on the two amenities I had
passive pathways and sitting areas with picnic benches. That was the two a.menities.
Staff reviewed that. That was in their conditions and recommendations to you. We will
go one step further and we will provide a gazebo as another amenity, just to kind of beef
that up. But was an amenity that we proposed, which did meet the code. We will give
an extra one and do the gazebo. So, we can make that a condition of approval as well.
The chicane, obviously, is on your drawing that you have right now, so that is
recognized. I would ask that if we could move forward, that two weeks prior to City
Council we will have staff and the city clerk copies of the revised plan. We will also
provide building envelopes that will show how the houses can sit on those 12 lots and
we will present that in plenty of time for the City Council to review that and for staff to
review that and to revise their staff report. But I think we keep tabling this and tabling
this and it has nothing to do with money and redoing plans, it's just the time, it's interest
on the land, it's a lot more than just redoing plans. And it's taken the neighbors' time
coming back and forth and my time sending out wrong letters without dates and things
like that. I think we need to get moving. That is my request is to put the conditions that
you feel appropriate and we will abide by them. I think there has been anything said
that you or staff has made that we would get up in front of the City Council and object to
as far as the conditions. I think we are willing to agree to those. So, I'll stand for any
questions or let you deliberate.
Zaremba: Commissioners, do you have any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions. I just have one comment. I have no
problem moving this forward, but I do want to make the comment that you have to bear
some of the burden for the continuances. A neighborhood meeting at the beginning of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 43 of 90
this process probably would have saved at least one continuance, the third one -- the
third time you have been --
Nickel: Yes. And just to correct you, we did have a neighborhood meeting before we
send the application --
Newton-Huckabay: The first time?
Nickel: Yes, we did. We have had three neighborhood meetings total.
Newton-Huckabay: You never fail to bring in a crowd.
Nickel: I know, but as Commissioner Rohm taught me a year ago, have your
neighborhood meeting before you submit the application, even though it's not required.
And so I do always do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, maybe form over substance, you should go substance
over form.
Nickel: And I will admit that we weren't prepared to show you at the last meeting the
product type and I think Bond explained that he didn't really know what the product type
would be because of the change, but you are correct, I will take some of the brunt of the
tabling. I'm not saying that it's all -- it's your fault. It's just a difficult piece of property
and I think we are to the point where we can move on. Please.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Staff, do you have any questions for Mr. Nickel?
Guenther: Not at this time.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I would ask a question of staff. Are you comfortable moving this on
with these recommendations?
Guenther: We were just having that discussion.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, my concern about the
driveways was not just that, it's a concern about the build environment that will be there.
Row houses tend to be across the street from other row houses or they tend to be
across the street from open space. These row houses are up against a road with no
context. So, I still personally have concerns about the number of units along the narrow
strip. You, of course, make your recommendations, but one of my jobs is when we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 44 of 90
forward that recommendation to City Council is to point out outstanding issues before
the Council. And I have to admit that I still have concerns about the number of units on
there.
Newton-Huckabay: The 12?
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: How concerned? Would you like to see it be five? Or would ten be
comfortable? Or any --
Canning: No. I mean I --
Zaremba: I don't think we are going to get to zero.
Canning: Some of it depends on -- some of my concerns may be lessened by seeing
what these -- how these designs fit on the lots and their ability to have shared access. I
recognize this is not an official collector. However, we are still going to have a lot of
cars going down on this side of the street and -- just the nature of the build environment
is going to make it feel more like a collector, even if the ACHD road standards don't put
the trips at 2,000 trips, it's still going to feel like one. So, a lot of it depends on how that
layout looks and how those driveways work, what kind of massing we are going to have
along that wall. I just feel like a transition from a solid row house type development onto
one acre lots is not what the Comprehensive Plan calls for when it talks about
transitioning.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I would say with that said, moving it forward probably isn't going to
be a good idea at this point, because it's going to get to City Council and the planning
director is going to point out all the things that she thinks is wrong with it and it's going to
get sent back here anyway. Would that be--
Borup: Well, it's got to get to City Council sometime. This started back in the first of
July. I mean the first week in July was the first time this was on the schedule. First
meeting I mean.
Zaremba: If I remember correctly, the first iteration I saw of this had like 16 lots, where
we now have 12.
Newton-Huckabay: Could I make one more comment real quick?
Zaremba: Please do.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we maybe just take an informal -- who is ready to move it on to
City Council and who is not? That might just make this discussion over now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 45 of 90
Borup: Good point.
Rohm: I'm ready to move it on.
Moe: I'm not.
Borup: I am.
Zaremba: I could go either way. I will have to say Mr. Nickel comforted me, you know,
and, of course, reminded me that all of this does have to be in hard line drawings two
weeks before the City Council hearing.
Borup: That would be the stipulation that I would --
Zaremba: The things that he said comfort me that almost everything that people have
asked for is going to get in there. The shared driveways are going to encourage people
to come out onto this roadway forward, as opposed to backing out onto it. I'm not
convinced that I actually need to see that drawing, if I'm satisfied that that drawing will
exist before City Council. But also I guess my question is are we satisfied that reduction
to 12 lots satisfies us -- I understand the director's concern, which she would like to see
it be even less than that, and that's where I would still waffle. Mr. Nickel gave me a lot
of comfort that I didn't have before he spoke.
Newton-Huckabay: Let's move it on.
Zaremba: The chair would entertain a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: You go ahead. I made the last one.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close public hearings AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? The
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 46 of 90
Zaremba: Do we need to discuss any wording or are you confident that you understand
what things we want to add?
Borup: Would the comments on the footprint and shared driveway, et cetera, be under
the CUP or under the preliminary plat? Be under the CUP, wouldn't it? Is that correct?
Guenther: It would be on both.
Borup: Both?
Zaremba: Yeah. Or even a develop agreement on the annexation.
Guenther: We do have a development agreement in this staff report and if you wanted
to tie the elevations as presented to the development agreement, you could do that as
well.
Zaremba: I think that would be probably a good suggestion. And the shared driveways
along that chicane.
Newton-Huckabay: You can't do those elevations with shared driveways, can you? I
mean those were front end --
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, generally we don't tie them
to exactly those elevations, but just that they be generally consistent with these
elevations. So, if the garage flips to the side, then --
Borup: Yeah. I was looking for the general architectural design and feel and -- as
representative of those --
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: They are never the same. As they are presented to us anyway.
Rohm: Well, we are just clarifying before you make the motion. Okay. Just to make
sure we have got all the elements that we need to add to the staff report, we need the
addition of a gazebo, a pathway --
Newton.Huckabay: No. That was already on there.
Rohm: Okay. A shared driveway.
Newton-Huckabay: On all lots.
Rohm: On all lots --
Newton-Huckabay: Twelve lots.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 47 of 90
Zaremba: Well, the lots along the --
Rohm: All lots along the --
Newton-Huckabay: We said all 12 lots.
Rohm: All 12 lots.
Zaremba: Yeah, not the whole subdivision, so we need to--
Moe: Gee, I would think that this would be enough reason to continue this thing,
because we can't get it right to begin with.
Rohm: We are working on it. And the inclusion of the chicane in the middle of the --
Zaremba: As drawn.
Rohm: As drawn.
Borup: But that's already submitted. That's what we are ~- that's not a change from the
staff recommendation.
Rohm: So, we don't need to include that if it's already --
Zaremba: It would for emphasis. I mean we would like to see -- we clearly understood
that and that's what we support.
Rohm: We want the site footprints, too.
Zaremba: Building footprints for each lot. On the --
Borup: Twelve lots.
Zaremba: Each of the 12 lots.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: We probably should identify those by plat number.
Rohm: The numbers are all just backwards. I just need lot and block number.
Zaremba: And put parenthesis Block 4.
Rohm: And all lots on Block 4? Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 48 of 90
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-026,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, received August
23rd, 2005, and no changes for the AZ. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: Did we want to add elements to the development agreement?
Rohm: Is that where we need to make the -- okay. Excuse me. I will add to the staff
report that --
Zaremba: In the development agreement.
Rohm: -- In the development agreement there will be general elevations as presented
for the 12 lots in Block 4 and the building footprints for those 12 lots will also be included
prior to City Council and staff will have a chance to review two weeks prior to City
Council. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Moe: Nay.
Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-025,
to include staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, received August
23rd, 2005, with the following changes: The developer will include a gazebo in one of
the common areas.
Guenther: Commissioner Rohm? The gazebo would be with the conditional use in the
Rohm: Can we include --
Canning: Probably under the easement needs to go in this one, would be the only one
that -- the only thing that affects the plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 49 of gO
Rohm: The common driveway?
Canning: Yeah.
Rohm: Okay. When we will~-
Zaremba: And do we need to add to the common driveways a cross-access
agreement?
Rohm: That's by definition, isn't it?
Canning: That's what the easement is is the cross-access is identified on the plat is
because you need that easement shown on the plat.
Rohm: In addition to the existing staff comments for the preliminary plat, the inclusion
of shared driveways for in between each two lots of Block 12 -- or Block 4, the 12 lots.
And that would be a cross-access easement between those lots. And I believe that's it
for this motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Moe: Nay.
Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September
1, 2005, and received August 23rd, 2005, with the following changes: We will require
the inclusion as an amenity a gazebo in one of the two common areas on either the
north or the south of Block 4 for this subdivision. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Discussion. Do we need to repeat the request for footprints or anything like
that with the CUP?
Guenther: Yes. We will take the footprints with the CUP as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 50 of 90
Zaremba: Okay. We may as well mention the shared driveways again, then, also.
Rohm: Okay. Do it all. Additions to the proposed motion, the developers will include
footprints of the 12 homes to be constructed on Block 4 and shared driveways will also
be shown. End of motion.
Zaremba: And does the second accept the amendments to the motion?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Moe: Nay.
Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. This will proceed on to City Council. These
drawings are provided to our staff now two weeks ahead of the city Council Meeting, but
they will also be available in the city clerk's office how far ahead of that meeting, do we
know? Approximately ten days before the Public Hearing at City Council the drawings
will be available in the clerk's office. And I wanted to thank the representatives of ACHD
for coming out tonight and other representatives as well. Thank you. Traditionally
about 9:00 o'clock we take a short break. And we have past 9:00 o'clock, so we will
take ten minutes and reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PFP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for 3 single family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 1.58 acres
in a R-4 zone for Woodward Estates Subdivision by Cortland Walker -
southwest corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 12th Street:
Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the record
show that all Commissioners are again present. And we will proceed onto Item 12. I
will open the Public Hearing for PFP 05-004, relating to Woodward Estates Subdivision.
And we will begin with the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission I realized toward the end of
the last hearing that I was up next and, then, in doing my prep time I got sidetracked by
a conversation about schools and planners and new planners and I could not talk to a
new planner, because I love planning. So, you will have to, again, put up with my
abbreviated presentations. I'm filling in for Brad. This is Woodward Estates. It is a
preliminary-final plat for a four lot residential subdivision on 1.58 acres. It includes three
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 51 of 90
building lots at the northern end of the site, as you see, one, two, three, and, then, one
common lot and the common lot would be in the homeowners association. It's at the
southwest corner of Crestwood Drive and 12th. You can see the area there. It is
currently vacant, except for the southern property is being used for RV storage and
other storage. There are -- the property does consist of two existing parcels and they
are both owned by the Center Valley Homeowners Association. You may think that this
looks familiar and it is. The three proposed residential lots were the subject of a
previous combine preliminary-final plat last year. It was 04-007. At that time that
southern parcel was not included. It was under a different ownership. In reviewing the
application, one of the things that was discovered that really needed to be included and
that's why it's included before you tonight. These are un-platted property, so this is the
first time they have been platted. Okay. A few other things. ACHD on those existing
streets -- because there is no new streets, but ACHD has required that they bring those
adjoining streets up to current standards. So, any existing deficiencies would be
corrected regarding curb, sidewalk, gutter, et cetera. This property is designated as
medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan and it is surrounded by
Crestwood Estates, basically. To the north it's plat number three, zoned R-4. To the
south it's plat number five, zoned R-4. And to the east it's both Crestwood Estates No.
1 and Fenway Park Subdivision, R-4. But as you can see it's surrounded by R-4
development. Brad did ask me to point out that a correction on the owner of record.
Crias Scolisi is not the notarized owner, it's now Cortland Walker. Okay. I'm going to
move on to special considerations. The first is that parkway median improvements.
There is an existing seven-foot wide parkway on the north side of the subdivision, which
lies entirely within the public right of way and, then, there is also a hundred foot long
island within 12th. I think one of these -- you can see it right there. And you can see
that it's not green. Both of the landscaped areas are not being maintained by ACHD.
They are in the right of way, however. These are typically maintained by the
homeowners, but because there are no homeowners, they haven't been maintained.
The staff -- the requirement that staff anticipates that the existing homeowners will take
over responsibility, but they would also encourage the applicant to enter into a license
agreement with ACHD and improve both those parkways and -- the parkway and the
island. Regarding the common lot, the large one at the south end of the property, it's
currently un-platted, as I mentioned before, but it is owned by the homeowners
association and it's used for vehicle storage currently. Staff has asked in the staff report
that at this Public Hearing that the applicant address maintenance responsibility and
discussions with neighbors that they had and any changes that they -- that occurred on
the site regarding improving the appearance of this property since last year. It was a
discussion at the last hearing, so -- on the rundown appearance of this storage lot.
Okay. And, then, two additional items to discuss. One was the landscape island on
Southwest 12th. The island is -- as I mentioned before, within the ACHD right of way
and it is not a common lot to any subdivision. But, again, the maintenance of that was a
concern and if the applicant could address anything that he's worked with or has ideas
about to improve this appearance of that. And I think that that is it for staff's
presentation. I'll answer any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioner, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 52 of 90
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Anna, is there irrigation to those planters?
Canning: No.
Moe: There is not?
Canning: I don't believe there is.
Moe: Okay. I think that the last time this came before us that was the same case.
Zaremba: I remember something like --
Canning: If there is it's not working currently.
Moe: Right. Maybe I'm just not here. Where, actually, is the Central Valley
Homeowners Association system? Make note of -- that they are doing some extensions
from another -- for the pressurized irrigation system. I'm just trying to figure out where
that system might possibly be able to be extended into those planter areas as well.
Cole: Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, it is a private system. They
have indicated in this application that they have permission from Crestwood to extend
the PI into their project. The preliminary plat was fairly vague on the particulars of it. It
looked like that showed it as an extension from the planter strip that we have been
talking about, as -- where it was shown on the preliminary plat. I'm not fully aware of
where it's located. It's usually located down back property lines, the mains are. They
would have to get pressurized irrigation to this -- these pieces -- these three lots as part
of the conditions of approval.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Cole: I'm sure that if it is in that landscape as the preliminary plat depicted, that as they
brought it across they would probably fix whatever deficiency was in that buffer and,
then, it would make it work.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: I do have another question on this famous planter strip. I assume -- I assume
that was -- was built during the construction of either one or both of the adjoining
subdivisions. Are we talking two subdivisions here, one on each side of the street? Is
that correct?
Canning: It's all Crestwood.
Borup: It is -- Crestwood is --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 53 of 90
Canning: I believe so.
Borup: -- on both sides? So, if -- I assume that was -- maybe we will get some
clarification. So, I assume that was built when Crestwood was developed. If they have
got a homeowners association, why isn't that the responsibility of the Crestwood
homeowners association?
Canning: I think there was a period of time when the Ada County surveyor was not as
careful as he is now to make sure that there is ownership assigned to those islands as
were platted. I think that some of them were platted completely within right of ways
without any assignment of responsibility for maintenance and that's why you often see
that as a plat note now, is because that is a concern. But I think that this was platted
long enough ago that it perhaps missed that plate note.
Borup: Okay. That explains that. I do have a question on one item, number 15, on the
necessity of that. Public Works Department is probably the one that's going to want to
address that. I'm just -- I'm just trying to get one more dig in on a pet peeve of mine, but
go ahead.
Canning: I can answer that. It is because of the island, you don't want to have the
home taking access off of 12th, because the island would block the entrance into that
property.
Borup: So, it was only because of the island, not for any other reasons?
Canning: Yes. Yes.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the applicant to come forward, please.
Walker: I'm Cortland Walker, 1300 South Heidi Place. And, yeah, we are just trying to
create three lots there. It used to be a tennis court, which was vacated, too much
upkeep for the number one Crestwood Subdivision, which is over on this side. That
was done back in probably '80, '78, '82, somewhere in that area. In about 1989 those --
whoever did that part of the development left, somebody else picked up this part over
here and did Crestwood number two and, then, about probably six, eight years later
somebody else did Fenway Park, which is just right across from Block 1. So, there is
three subdivisions right there on the corner. Our intention was to change this into three
building lots. The homes will be as good as or better than the other ones in the
surrounding area. Most of them are 1,200, 1,250, 1,300, and up a little bit from there.
We plan on building homes there in the neighborhood of 1,500, 1,600 square feet.
Some of them will have basements. Actually, they will be for my -- a couple of my kids
are going to live there. We live right where you see Block 1" just right left of there, we
have our house right there. So, the grand kids can walk along the fence. That doesn't
mean anything to you, but that's our intention was to make those lots so the kids could
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 54 of 90
live there and help them get into a house. As far as the strip there, I wished ACHD
would let us just tear it out and put street in there. I don't know if they will or not. It's
really kind of a horrible island. You can get one car up one side and down the other.
You can't park on the side of the road, because of that median there. If that was an
option, I would pay to get that thing out of the middle and pour pavement in there.
Other than that, that's where we are at.
Zaremba: Can you identify for us where the irrigation is going to connect? Where are
you --
Walker: Well, if you could bring that other map up of the whole area. Is Corey here?
There is Corey. All right. Corey can answer that probably better than I can, because
he's in the Crestwood number one subdivision and it's right --
Zaremba: Pick up that other microphone if you would.
Canning: Or use the laser pointer. One or the other.
Walker: It's right there. Okay. You see a little pump house there, a little white spot,
and that supplies the water for the Crestwood number one subdivision and, then, it
would come across, take care of that median, and over to those other lots.
Moe: So, you're saying it will go to the west?
Walker: Is that correct, Corey? Yes.
Moe: So, it will go to the west to pick up those lots?
Walker: That is correct.
Moe: So, it would go right through that planter area?
Walker: Yes. Although it does now. I don't know why it doesn't work either. Do you
know, Corey? Okay. We'll let him address that when he--
Moe: The other -- I guess the other question I had, has anyone gone to ACHD to verify
whether or not you can get rid of the planter?
Walker: I kind of got in after someone else was going to develop it and there was some
things and he couldn't finish the job and somebody came to me and said would you like
to have -- because I had already put an option through that developer and they said,
well, do you want to take over and I said you bet. So, I kind of didn't get on the very first
ground floor. Like I say, Corey can answer some of those questions that I can't. They
are the Crestwood number one that that's to sell me the property and so with that I'll just
turn the time over to Corey.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 55 of 90
Moe: One more question, if I might.
Walker: Okay.
Moe: I understand what you're doing with the three smaller lots. What are you going to
do with the lower south lot?
Walker: The big lot is still retained by Crestwood number one and it's their responsibility
to take care of the RV park to keep the weeds down and all that kind of stuff.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: It's just been un-platted until now is all. Isn't that correct?
Walker: Right.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: So, the care of it is going to be the homeowners association.
Walker: It's going to be the homeowners association of homeowner number one.
Borup: And the road where the island is is not any wider. It doesn't bulb out there, so
it's just normal road width.
Walker: It's just a normal narrow street with a --
Borup: Which is different than the islands that we see now in the developments. Where
we have the islands the road is wider.
Walker: They are wider. Yeah. This one is really a boxy thing. When it was kept up it,
you know, looks nice, but it's still an obstruction to the access to that street.
Newton-Huckabay: How long is that street?
Walker: You can see where it comes down to the bottom and makes a -- it goes that
way or bend it the other way and comes around this side of Crestwood. Down at this
side is a big drain ditch for irrigation. Drainage.
Moe: So, then, you would be in favor of --
Walker: Oh, absolutely.
Borup: Now you can say anything you want.
Moe: Pardon me?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 56 of 90
Borup: He said he was in favor of something before you even said it.
Moe: I noticed that.
Zaremba: Painting the roadway blue is what he was going to say.
Moe: I'm, actually, in favor of getting rid of the planter and I'm anticipating, then, you
would take care of the cost of taking care of removal of that planter and repaving it in, if
ACHD would allow that?
Walker: I would do that. I would. Unless Corey really wants it. And I will work that out
with him and ACHD.
Zaremba: Boy, this would be the time to do it, since they -- have they done the chip
seal in your neighborhood yet?
Walker: Yes. Just finished it last week.
Zaremba: Should have done it the month before.
Walker: Yes. Like I mentioned, the access to the two lots will come off the Crestwood
Street that runs parallel to Franklin. The other one will come off 12th on that third lot.
Because of that median, that's the only way to get into that -- into that lot, right at the
very end of the median. So, it makes it kind of tight to get in there anyway. Anything
else?
Zaremba: Thank you. Corey Makizuru.
Makizuru: Hi. I'm Corey Makizuru. I live at 937 West Crestwood. And I'm also the
President of the Center Valley Homeowners Association. This is -- well, first of all, the
homeowners association is very supportive of these three lots moving into that common
ground area. It's been a -- more or less a five year process in the works and I can,
hopefully, answer a lot of your questions as to the planter, irrigation system. You know,
at one time we actually had irrigation going to the planter, as well as to the common
area when there was the tennis courts. When we pulled out the tennis courts with
anticipation of selling that property, the developer actually tore up all of our irrigation line
and, then, we also found a leak in our irrigation system that ran underneath the asphalt
that led under the planter. So, we contacted ACHD about the possibility of having that
planter removed and they told us that it's quite fine if we actually did it ourself, but they
didn't have the funds to be able to do that. So, in the process of trying to develop this
property, we tried to find the right time and the opportunity, since we would have to
repair our irrigation system, which is under asphalt, under the road, so, therefore, most
likely tearing out that planter, hopefully, removing that planter and we tried to actually
remove it and tried to get ACHD to remove it, but they, again, chose not to do that. But
simply the Center Valley Homeowners Association is very supportive of selling, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 57 of 90
know, or subdividing this lot and we will have the responsibility to insure that they are
hooked up to our irrigation system. And, then, the common ground area, the RV park
on the south side of this lot, will also be our responsibility for upkeep. Answer any
questions?
Zaremba: If we can go back to the site plan, maybe, at least one that shows -- yeah.
This one will work. Indicate either the current or abandoned or ruined or whatever
you're saying -- locate the irrigation lines for me if you would.
Makizuru: Actually, we have an irrigation line that ran into this area, which we are trying
to develop. The line itself -- we believe it runs right across the planter and, then, there
is lines that go across here to our pump house, which is located right there. And so we
have lines that basically run through all of our homeowners area down here as well and,
again, we are hoping to extend the line. We believe the line ends right there and I
instructed my landscaping people to shut off the system, because there was a break in
the system right there and, therefore, was impacting my homeowners on this corner.
Zaremba: So, to connect to this new subdivision you're going to have to install a new
line across the street or repair the old one or --
Makizuru: Correct.
Zaremba: What's the thought?
Makizuru: Our thought is -- first of all, we have to dig underneath the road on 12th to
see if the line is repairable. If not, then, we have to run a new line.
Zaremba: And can part of that process be fixing the part that supplies the island if you
don't get it removed?
Makizuru: Correct. Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Makizuru: Now, some of my neighbors really desire that this island is actually removed,
because, as Cortland brought to your attention, the street is somewhat narrow, you
know, and it's basically a one way here and a one way there. So, ideally, you know, if
we could remove that island, that would be the ideal situation. Although at one time
when we had the water going to that island we -- it was green and flowers and it was
upkept by the homeowners association.
Zaremba: Then just a point of confusion. This area is called Crestwood Estates, but
the homeowners association is Central Valley. Is that two different things or -- is there a
Crestwood Homeowners Association?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 58 of 90
Makizuru: The -- we belong to the Center Valley Homeowners Association, which
consists of this area -- I'm sorry -- from actually along Franklin down along here and,
then, down here. And this section there. And, then, this is, I believe, Fenway and this is
the other subdivision. Crestwood number two. That doesn't belong to Center Valley
Homeowners Association number one on this. It's sort of a strange, you know, awkward
area, because this property belongs here to this group, even though this property sits in
Crestwood number two, which doesn't belong to the Crestwood Homeowners
Association. And, then, Fenway Park is down here.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioners?
Borup: Just one of the staff comments asked to address the maintenance of -- you said
it would be under your maintenance, but apparently there has been some previous
comments that may not have been done real well, so that's been addressed and can be
handled better in the future?
Makizuru: It has been addressed today and it's an issue that needs, you know,
continued diligence on my part to insure that it gets done and it's a communication issue
with our landscaping people to make sure it does get done. Clearly, due to the vacancy
and just the uncertainty with that lot, it hasn't received the kind of attention that it should
have.
Borup: Thank you.
Makizuru: And that would be corrected.
Zaremba: Well -- and this would either reinstall or repair the irrigation going to it, which
makes it easier to maintain.
Makizuru: And our part it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to dig up the irrigation
system if we couldn't remove the island, you know, and, then, have to re-dig the road if
we had to, then, figure out what we need to do with those lots. So, we waited and it's
been long, you know, and we are anticipating, you know, the lot to be -- those homes to
be built and, then, we can get water to it.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Those are the only people that are signed up. Is there
anybody else that cares to add anything? Okay. Mr. Walker, do you care to have a
final word? Nothing to rebut. Okay. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have no comments.
Rohm: It appears to be very straight forward to me. Mr. Chairman.
Moe: I would agree. I guess I'm still just trying to -- I realize that the city has prepared
the staff report, you know, it's already been -- you know, the city can't require the
applicant to improve the landscaping in those planters and whatnot, but I guess I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 59 of 90
curious as to what avenue do they take or whatnot to either get ACHD's approval to go
ahead and remove that planter. I mean either way they are going to trench across that
street to get irrigation over to those lots. So, I'm just trying to get kind of a handle on
how this is going to be addressed, whether or not they are going to provide irrigation for
that planter or whether they are going to try and get rid of the planter.
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open and, yes, you may.
Moe: I was hoping you would come up.
Walker: Along that road -- I will just walk over -- right along here the sidewalk sits back
-- the sidewalk is right here. This is the street curb. And so there is a buffer there.
Grass. What they are probably referring to is that we have the same thing that runs
along here. This is just sidewalk here. It's detached. There is a patch of grass in the
middle and that's probably what they are requesting that is taken care of, besides this
planter here.
Zaremba: My comment on the island would be I would have no problem with it being
removed. I think that's a fine solution. I would have no problem with it being nicely
landscaped and maintained. What we don't want is the middle ground, where it's not
removed and it looks the way it looks today, which is not attractive.
Walker: It sounds like the association is in favor of removing it as well, so that will be
our first option is to try to move it out of there. If not, we will keep it.
Zaremba: And since it sounds like the source for your irrigation comes through there
anyhow, if it's not removed, repairing it would be part of the deal.
Walker: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: I guess just one other question for staff, then. They would, indeed, still need to
enter into a licensing agreement with ACHD in regards to the Crestwood Drive parkway
area? Under special considerations item number one at the end there, your last
sentence in there.
Canning: I don't -- I thought that was mostly for the island. Generally, on the parkways
the individual property owners don't enter into license agreements with ACHD, to my
knowledge.
Moe: So, then, it sounds like they will be able to work it out a couple different ways,
either they are going to get rid of the planter area altogether or they are going to need to
do something with ACHD with the planter.
Canning: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 60 of 90
Moe: Okay.
Canning: And, then, I just wanted to make sure that the Commission felt they had
gotten enough information on the RV storage and the upkeep of that. It has been in the
ownership of the homeowners association and that was the source of complaints from
the public at the prior hearing. Now no one's here this time, so I don't know --
Zaremba: Well, he stated for the record when there is irrigation available to it that there
will be better upkeep, but do we need to do something more specific than that?
Canning: That's up to you all.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I think you were talking to someone when we discussed that or were you?
There was not a lot of discussion. They just said that -- the homeowners association
said they would be addressing that and be more diligent on the upkeep. I don't think we
discussed any landscaping there, though. Was that an issue?
Rohm: I don't believe so.
Newton-Huckabay: Strongly suggest you landscape it.
Zaremba: Well, that would be a question. Since it's not a residential use, can we
require that there be a landscape buffer?
Canning: I'm trying to think what the code says. I don't know if it would be a listed use
of storage. It's unusual in that it's an accessory storage kind of, it's accessory to the
subdivision. We don't see this very often in ours. There are not required buffers for
local streets and this is a local street. So, typically, you wouldn't see one there, unless
they were bringing in a parking lot and, then, the parking standard -- landscaping
standards would apply. So, it's kind of a -- even though it's being used for storage, it's
not really a parking lot. You can definitely -- it's kind of in this kind of limbo land where
we don't have much going out there, so --
Rohm: Personally, I think that it's a code enforcement issue after the fact. If, in fact, it's
not being maintained properly and it's brought to the attention of the city, they can issue
a citation to clean it up and that's enough said about that and they know it needs to be
maintained and we don't have to specifically address it as a separate line item, just note
that it's been addressed as far as this application and the applicant has spoke to their
willingness to do a better job of maintaining it down the road. And, in my opinion, that's
enough said about that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 61 of 90
Moe: I would agree.
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 05-004.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 05-
004, to include staff comments for the hearing date September 1 st, 2005, and received
August 29th, 2005, in their entirety. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
modify the Conditions of Approval for CUP 05-030, in order to allow the
existing building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow a public
use in the O-T zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers
and Merchants State Bank - 703 North Main Street:
Zaremba: We are ready for Item 13 and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP
05-040, relating to Farmer and Merchants State Bank and begin with staff remarks.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Farmers and
Merchants State Bank as applied to modify the conditions of approval for CUP 03-050,
which was an approval to construct a new bank facility on their -- on the same property
as they had an existing older bank facility at the corner -- at the northwest corner of
Broadway and Main Street in downtown Meridian. A condition of approval that was the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 62 of 90
project by City Council was that the remaining building shall be torn down upon
occupancy of the new structure. The applicant did not request that condition and staff
didn't either. So, the proposal before you is for the building to remain, to modify the
conditions of approval to allow the building to remain. It would, then, be leased as office
space to the City of Meridian temporarily. And also the conditional use before you is to
allow a public use in the Old Town zone. I will mention that when the new Unified
Development Code takes effect shortly, public uses are no longer conditional uses in
Old Town zone, so just coincidentally at the timing of this, before this even gets to
Council the public use will be a permitted use in the Old Town zone, so the need for that
kind of goes away. The need to modify the conditions of approval for this original CUP
do remain. So, there is a matter before you. I will mention a couple things. One is a
letter from Washington Federal Bank that was received and should be part of your
packets, relating to access from their parking lot to the north of the site and how their
customers access and use the site. When the original approval for the Farmers and
Merchants State Bank came through this was proposed to be a public seating plaza
with a little bit of landscaping and some associated benches. And, then, this parking lot
area would be constructed and that access would be blocked. For reference, this is the
Washington Federal Bank. This is the building that Farmers and Merchants is
proposing to keep. And, then, this would be the new Farmers and Merchants building
over on Meridian Road. When the new Farmers and Merchants Bank was constructed,
Farmers and Merchants did put an extruded concrete curb across right here. What that
effectively did was stop a gentlemen's agreement, so to say, that Washington Federal
Bank and Farmers and Merchants had that the Washington Federal customers entered,
used these angled parking spaces, and, then, exited through the Farmers and
Merchants property onto Broadway Street or Broadway Avenue. The placing of that
curb has stopped that as referenced in the letter submitted from Washington Federal.
Staff would be supportive of some sort of requirement that they allow -- or sign a cross-
access agreement with Washington Federal. Washington Federal has represented that
they would pay for the removal and, then, the reinstallation of the curbing. So, staff
would support that to help this block of downtown function properly in terms of vehicular
traffic. The other thing to mention -- I did mention the public use in the UDC. The
property does have an existing driveway onto Main Street. It was the old drive-up for
the bank. There is a canopy in this area. Staff does have concerns about cars
accessing that and using that in a couple of ways. Washington Federal customers
could exit the Washington Federal parking lot and move onto Main Street, causing
conflicts with vehicles coming in that couldn't see them. And also you have possible
conflicts from the customers that come in off of Main Street and use this as kind of a
back way to get to these parking spaces and, then, you would have some conflicts with
cars coming in there. So, staff does have some concerns with that and, you know, is
open to some recommendations that that be blocked off or that Washington Federal, as
part of the cross-access agreement with Farmers and Merchants, do something to block
that off. Kind of I guess leave that up for discussion and at your discretion. Other than
that, I think I'll stand for questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Mr. Stewart, who wrote the letter on behalf
of Washington Federal, is signed up to speak, so apparently he's here this evening. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 63 of 90
after the applicant we will have him speak. But just -- actually, I was a little surprised by
the comment that there is a -- my light's not working. That the curb that you referred to
was there. I remember some discussion when we were talking about this building being
removed -- this building being removed and they talked about adding a curb, but I
thought they were talking about here, which would block off the driveway that's being a
concern. So, you know, if it works into the discussion, I would support removing that
portion of curbing and asking for a real cross-access agreement. We will discuss that
with both the applicant and Mr. Stewart. Are there any other questions from the
Commissioners? If the applicant would care to come forward. Who is that? Let me
see.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I believe I mentioned earlier that I'm aware that the
applicant might be out -- the applicant's representative might not be able to make it
tonight.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will move onto the sign-up sheet. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you for your well-reasoned letter.
Stewart: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and council and staff, Mark Stewart, from 1119
West 11th in Meridian, and I am the branch manager of Washington Federal, which is
the site to the north that we just spoke of, and we don't know exactly how old these
buildings are. We know our building was built is '67 and Farmers was before that. So,
these buildings have stood side by side for a long time and as far as I know, yes, it was
just a gentleman's agreement to cross those properties, nothing legal has been found.
Most of the people that did this are long gone. First of all, we are not against Farmers
and Merchants doing what they want with this property. We -- they have been good
neighbors with us and we welcome the city or whoever else uses that building also. Our
issue is with partially the flow of traffic through downtown, those parking lots there that
we are talking about. As you're all aware, we are kind of all undersized and even in
today's standards those parking lots are kind of tight and the safety -- I was led to
believe all along that that curb was not going to be between the two sites. This is the
first you have heard of anything from us. So, we have wanted to remove it and wanted
to do since. Or even before. But now we are finding that because of that small size of
our parking lot, customers generally are elderly, are just backing back out into that alley,
which is this area, causing just as much grief as accessing across the new parking lot
there. We -- I guess we don't have a car count or anything like that we could really give
you to give you an indication of how many more cars would pass through, but we have
the indication of anybody who does park here that goes with this building, they also
pass through this exit also. So, we will be going with their flow. As part of the parking
plan that was originally proposed, this drive-up was not going to be there, so this is kind
of a new issue we are dealing with. If you're really in that parking lot and looking at the
flow, it would be hard for you to really think you could drive up that way, but never say
never, because we get people do everything you can imagine. So, we would be -- I
think personally that that has no value to the existing tenant and that we would like to
also work with Farmers and Merchants maybe to do something that would at least
stymie the flow of people back up if they did want to keep it open. And as per our letter
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 64 of 90
we would be willing to pay to have that cut down. We have had people look at it for that
process. Again, we thought it was going to be grade level and it wouldn't be an issue
anyway. So, we would be willing to stand that cost just to help our customers go
through that. And also we will do whatever we can to patch up a couple places here in
our parking lot that will help direct that flow through there and encourage everybody to
go the direction we are hoping they will anyway. Any questions?
Zaremba: Any questions?
Borup: No question, just a statement. I mean I agree and supported everything in your
letter, that if those buildings were built side by side today we would require cross-access
agreements. That would be part of anything that would happen today.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Stewart: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else care to address this issue? All right. Thank you.
Everybody's had an opportunity. The applicant doesn't need to rebut anything and is
not here. I think I agree with the consensus that I may be hearing. It would make sense
to remove that piece of curbing and require a cross-access agreement as a condition of
this approval. I would also like to make another suggestion and that is that on the --
what was the original drive-thru, that something like a park bench or maybe removable
planters with small trees in them be put at both ends. That would leave visibility for the
police driving by on the street, they could still look down that little alleyway and see if
there was anything nefarious going on, but it would signal before you turned into the
driveway that it was not a through passage from both ends. And I would ask for some
discussion on a solution there or a condition like that.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that's an excellent solution and I'd support that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I feel that's probably the only thing that we even need to discuss, but I'm -- it
seems to me like it may be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know. I
don't think there is really traffic through there.
Rohm: Well, there won't be if we put planters there.
Borup: Right. So, I don't know that it matters much either way, but I don't know, it may
be -- I don't know if it's a benefit to tenants using the building that it may be handy to pull
in when you're coming down Main Street, if you're going just directly to that building. I
don't think there is going to be a lot of -- there is not going to be use from anyone else,
other than tenants going to that building.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 65 of 90
Rohm: My only concern would be the customers to the property to the north try and
make a turn and exit and cause a problem right at that juncture. But that's not the
normal flow of traffic, but if there is a will, there is a way.
Borup: Yeah. And it's normally traffic on that street that doesn't make sense to do that.
It's too hard to get out there. That -- well, anyway, I don't know that it matters either way
to me, but I don't know that there is really a problem there.
Rohm: The only reason why I would support putting some planters in there is the
original thought process was that this building was going to be removed and this whole
area was going to be kind of converted into a park type area and --
Zaremba: The driveway at Main would have been closed off.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: And the entrance wouldn't exist.
Rohm: And this wouldn't exist. So, by making it a requirement that a planter be placed
there in the interim seems to cover the intent of the original approval process, while at
the same time allowing for them to utilize the property as requested.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: So, you're ready to make a motion, I assume?
Rohm: I'm tired. Mr. Moe.
Moe: You said it so well.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-040.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Will those items, then, just become new site-specific conditions?
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 66 of 90
Moe: Is that what those will do?
Zaremba: I think so.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Since no one else was saying anything yet, I move we recommend approval to
City Council of file number CUP 05-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date September 1 st, with the following modifications and that is to add some type of
planter or benching or something to prevent traffic flow through the previous drive-thru
access --
Zaremba: I would say at both ends of it.
Borup: Right. At both ends coming from -- yeah. That previously went from the parking
lot to Main Street. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: No cross-access?
Borup: Yes. Right. And there will be a cross access.
Zaremba: That requires removing the curb.
Borup: As stated in the letter from Washington Federal.
Rohm: I'll second that also.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard
Jenkins - 3893 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 05-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16
single family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 4.99 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard Jenkins -
3893 South Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 67 of gO
Zaremba: Okay. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038, relating to
Pisa Place Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Members of the Commission. The application for Pisa Place
Subdivision lies on the west side of South Locust Grove, south of Victory Road.
Immediately adjacent to the recently approved Chatsworth Subdivision, which is not
constructed yet, and a little bit to the north of Chatsworth is also recently approved
Roseleaf, which has begun construction. And, then, to the east would be parts of
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. The applicant has proposed 16 single family building lots
on 4.99 acres and has proposed to be annexed as an R-8 zone. The site is not
proposed to take access from South Locust Grove Road, it would take access from a
future road in Chatsworth, East Pisa Street. The applicant has presented a couple
different street sections here. At the connection to Chatsworth Subdivision it would be a
standard street section with attached sidewalks with the standard ACHD right of way.
At the point that the northern cul-de-sac, if you will, here attaches, then, it would
become detached sidewalks with ACHD drainage swales for handling the site storm
water drainage requirements. There is an existing home on the property here that
would have a large lot platted around it and, then, the access to South Locust Grove
would, then, be eliminated with this plat and all the lots in the subdivision would take
access internally from Chatsworth Subdivision. One -- a couple things. The applicant,
in discussion with him, did not mean to, but dedicated a 25 foot landscape buffer, I
guess I would say. This is a collector road -- South Locust Grove here is designated as
a collector road and as such has a 20 foot required landscape buffer. The plat master
plans do show a 25 foot landscape buffer and that was requested that we might have
conditions of approval to require the 20 foot and staff is supportive of that comment, for
the 20 foot -- is what the ordinance calls for and is what has been determined to be
appropriate on collector road sections of this. So, I think we are in agreement with that
and we are okay with that. One -- a couple of -- another condition that staff has placed
on this is to graphically depict the transition from the attached sidewalk street section to
the detached sidewalk street section, the area here where Leaning Tower intersects
Pisa Court. And also for the applicant to depict any street trees proposed need to be
clarified tonight at the hearing what, if any, street trees are proposed as part of that
parkway. In other subdivisions on the other side of Locust Grove, for Tuscany Lakes,
when they re-platted, ACHD did allow one street tree per property line intersection,
meaning that where these property lines meet the right of way at a 90 degree angle,
they would allow one tree there and one tree there. I don't know if they allowed the
same on this site. I'll let the applicant address that. Staff would just like some
clarification if any street trees are proposed. Also in your packets is a letter from a
homeowner across Locust Grove Road discussing some problems with some irrigation
water on the property and backing onto his property. I did speak with the applicant's
representative. He does believe that it's possible that the pipe -- what happens is, in a
nutshell here, and if I'm not understanding this completely, the applicant can clarify, but
a pipe does come under Locust Grove Road and, then, is brought north to provide
irrigation water to a property up on the corner of Victory and Locust Grove. At this pOint
where it enters the property, apparently there is some backing of the water that, then,
ends up on the property across Locust Grove. The applicant's representative did say
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 68 of 90
that he believes that the pipe through this section of property may be undersized and
that may be part of the problem, or it just may not have -- may have deteriorated to the
point that they don't have a good entry to the pipe or it's clogged or something. He did
represent that that pipe will be replaced and rebuilt as part of this project and was
confident that the pipe would be sized as Chatsworth and Roseleaf were when they
were approved at an appropriate size to move the water through the property.
Apparently, the property owner to the north was getting their irrigation water -- you
know, there is a state law that says you have to deliver their water rights to them. So,
apparently, they were getting their water okay, it was just causing problems for this
downstream -- or this upstream user here. But the applicant's representative did testify
-- or represented that they could fix that. With that, I think I'll stand for any questions
from the Commission.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Not yet. And the applicant is already
making his way forward. Mr. Brown.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess Lot 7,
the existing home, just to clarify, currently there is a driveway at this location right here
that the existing home takes its access. It has a circle drive in front of the house and,
then, a garage over here on this side where they pull in. We have discussed with the
Chatsworth people about getting a cross-access easement and accessing their
entrance road, but eliminating our access out to Locust Grove. Staff suggested that we
were going to enter from here and that will not be the case. We are going to work with
our neighbors, they are going to have some landscaping and so forth here. There is
already an existing berm in here. We will have to remove that so we can access that.
The reason the irrigation water backs up is they built a berm in front of the house in this
location, this is pasture, and the water comes over and flows in and I believe the pipe's
dirty. We need to put it on alignment, pick it up with what Chatsworth is stubbing to us,
which Roseleaf stubbed to them and which Tuscany Village -- we stubbed to them. So,
we are very familiar with that ditch and that shouldn't be a problem. We will extend it to
our southern property line. There is also another gravity ditch over here in the corner
that we are going to connect in with Chatsworth also. We are sharing irrigation --
pressure irrigation water with them and so we have been in discussion with them all
along. We weren't intending in this area to put any street trees, as staff asked us to
clarify that. We are using the bio swale section, but we hadn't anticipated or planned on
doing any street trees. We were planning on landscaping this berm. Right now this is
just a big steep mound of dirt with lots of weeds on it. Giving it a nice slope consistent
with what else has been done along Locust Grove. The reason that we are using this
street section with the bio swale is because of the depth of the groundwater in the area.
The subdivision to the west, Chatsworth, was able to -- from their reports had deeper
groundwater and we have higher groundwater. So, that's why we are transitioning to
this street section and proposing to use it. We would prefer to make this 20 feet. And
other than that, I think we are pretty consistent with what Chatsworth was approved and
Roseleaf or at least or -- or not our leans, but our lots are similarly sized. Has to be the
hour, I think. Anyway, these lots along our southerly boundary are consistent with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 69 of 90
what's in Chatsworth to the west of us. The remainder of the lots are larger than what
you would see in any of those other developments. I'd stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Moe: You couldn't hit it at a better time. That's exactly my question I wanted ask you
and that is you have done very well with the lots sizes for this, other than I do question
the south lots, because they are, basically, bordering up to -- in the Comp Plan would
be -- which would be R-4 designation to the south there. And so you're not doing any
transition per se from an R-4 into that there, because they are all 6,500 square foot lots.
I'm just -- I realize you talk about to the west is, you know, the R-8 one and I'm just kind
of curious, did you guys even think about enlarging those lots on the south side at all?
Brown: You end up with kind of a difficult situation where the road is stubbed and what
we can really do right there. I guess we could have added a few extra feet to them, but
it really just didn't -- didn't quite work out. We felt that -- I mean these in this area are a
lot -- a lot bigger. We kind of had to do that, because of how we saved the house. We
did look at snoopies versus the cul-de-sacs. The highway district -- it became more
difficult in doing those snoopies, except, you know, in in-fill and they would view this as
in-fill, but it just -- this just seemed to be the best design for what we were kind of dealt
with this five acres. And, then, trying to protect the integrity of that house. So, we did
try a couple of different looks at some other things, but did always keep -- you know, we
always had 6,500, which was what was along the street to the west of us.
Moe: Well, again, I see this and, then, the lot sizes are great, other than on the south
side. I do have a concern that if, in fact, when the property to the south does develop,
and it is R-4, that they may have some problems in the future abutting up to an R-8,
right up to 6,500 square feet. We see that all the time in reverse here and so I'm just
kind of concerned about going ahead and going with it that way, but --
Zaremba: On the other hand, if this one is there first, they don't have anything to
complain about when they build.
Moe: And I agree there, too, but --
Borup: And they will probably ask for an R-8 anyway.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Mr. Brown, you're saying -- you're contending that that irrigation pipe is a proper
size and that the flooding that is being caused now is because it's not cleaned properly?
Brown: I was out there during an irrigation time and the water does puddle right here
and on where it was going, because you really couldn't see it and there is -- I mean it --
they really just -- instead of calling it a berm, it's just a big massive pile of dirt that's
there in front of that house and at the south end of that berm or pile of dirt, the water --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 70 of 90
kind of the property dips down and you have got this wall of dirt and so it goes down into
a pipe. So, I have no clue what size the pipe is and to the north of the driveway was
unkind bushes that prevented me from venturing further, but I know that the pipe came
out, because you could see it running and I have already been in contact with the
engineers to the north and they are continuing that pipe that Tuscany Village did in
another bridge project for this.
Borup: So, is this pipe going to be replaced through here?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: Oh. Okay. That answers Mr. Pulman's concern, then, that the pipe is going to
be replaced anyway.
Brown: It's going to -- so, basically, you're going to have a continuous grade from the
user at the corner all the way to our southerly boundary, with all new pipe that's less
than two years old.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: That should be help. Any other questions?
Rohm: Mr. Brown, I'm still a little bit concerned about this access to this lot via -- this is
a roadway to the adjacent development; is that correct?
Brown: Right.
Rohm: Maybe I should ask staff this while you're up here.
Brown: I can speak to that. I spoke to staff about it and asked them if it was possible
for us to do that on an -- and she told me just so that I worked it out with my neighbor.
And I spoke to the neighbor and said, you know, you might lose some landscaping in
this area and, in turn, we would landscape the corner, so that it dressed up his entrance
and it would just basically be a driveway entrance, so -- we couldn't think of highway
district conflicts that creates for one --
Zaremba: That was going to be my question. The driveway is far enough back from
Locust Grove that it meets their requirement?
Brown: Yeah. I mean, realistically, I would have the right, I believe, to access
anywhere along that road.
Borup: That abuts your property?
Brown: Yeah. I mean that -- legally I would have that ability, but what we are working
with the neighbor is to try to move it back up here and from my standpoint make it better
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 71 of 90
for the both of us. He's going to get screening if I bring this -- extend this landscaping
down -- if I bring my landscaping around that corner, he's going to have both sides of his
entrance landscaped. My client is going to live in that house. He's going to have the
ability to be behind a berm and landscaping with a driveway entrance. So, I think we
have addressed all of those, but you can definitely ask Anna. She's here.
Rohm: Well, I think your -- I think your response is what I was looking for, just to make
sure that the access into the lot is far enough off of Locust Grove that it doesn't cause
problems with that roadway. Thank you.
Zaremba: Let's see. And the letter we have been talking about is from Herman R.
Pullman. I think we have addressed most of his issues. There is nobody signed up to
speak on this item. If anybody would care to add something that needs to be said.
Newton-Huckabay: I just think Mr. Brown needs to come up and discuss roadside
swales for a half an hour.
Zaremba: Yes. Actually, we have had that discussion before.
Newton-Huckabay: We get to discuss roadside swales.
Zaremba: We have talked about roadside swales. I think we have finally learned what
they are and how they work. Okay. In that case, Mr. Brown doesn't need to rebut any
comments. And Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Who was that? Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes. I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I would just -- I just wanted to mention one thing. We did talk
with Mr. Brown about that access and he's correct that we are in support of that. I
would just make a request for one modification to this -- to the conditions of approval in
light of that. I just misinterpreted the submittal. It looked like it was taking access off of
that cul-de-sac. So, I would just add the --
Zaremba: I assumed the same thing looking at it, so--
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 72 of 90
Wilson: Yeah. I would just add the condition of approval that they do need to submit a
cross-access agreement with the final plat for the property, so that we make sure that
there is something in place there to access that property.
Zaremba: Okay.
Wilson: That's alii had.
Moe: That's the property to the north?
Wilson: Correct:
Zaremba: Do we know the name of the street?
Wilson: It is on -- well, let me look here. I can't quite read it up there. That's East De
Vinci Drive.
Zaremba: We might mention that. Commissioner Moe, you seem to be preparing for
this.
Moe: I'm preparing for it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward -- excuse me. I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September the 1 st, 2005, and
preliminary plat dated July 7, 2005, with the following modifications to conditions of
approval and that would be to submit a cross-access agreement for the street East De
Vinci Drive with the property to the north.
Zaremba: Lot 7.
Moe: Lot 7. End of motion.
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: That was for both.
Zaremba: That was a cough when I asked for any nays. It was five votes in favor.
Moe: Oh. Sorry about that. Yes, it was.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 73 of 90
Moe: That was for both of those. They were both noted, the AZ and the PP both were.
Zaremba: You did them together. I wasn't --
Moe: That was within the proposed motion as notes in the staff report.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.57
acres from R-1 to R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and
Susan Breinholt - 2580 North Meridian Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 05-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single family residential lots and 3 other lots on 3.57 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and Susan Breinholt -
2580 North Meridian Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. In that case we are ready to open the
public hearing for AZ 05-037 and PP 05-036, relating to Breinholt Subdivision. And we
will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Breinholt
Subdivision is located off of Meridian Road just slightly ~- well, it's a half-mile north of
Fairview Avenue. The location is another one of those long, sort of skinny pieces that
we deal with quite often. This would be considered an in-fill parcel as approximately 80
percent of it is surrounded by existing platted lots. The property to the north of it, we
have had discussions with the owner and they will in the future probably be bringing in a
similar type of a development with a stub street that would have to connect through this
subdivision or this proposal. As you can see from the aerial photo there is a two major
features. One would be the South Slough, which runs along a portion of the northern
border, which the South Slough does call for a multi-use pathway. This is listed in the --
as a portion of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat doesn't include the landscape
plan for this proposal, just because of the size of the parcel, it's very minimal. The
parcel is also proposing to have -- I'm sorry. The second feature is the existing home
that's on there, which will be removed. The odd feature for the site is the four stub
streets coming from the south, which is Fothergill Point. Normally, we don't see a three
and a half acre site with four stub streets to it. The applicant has made the best of this
situation, as shown here. I did meet with them many times in order to discuss
alternates and proposals. And the proposal here is what staff recommend to them.
There are several parcels here. There is 22 single family residential parcels and about
two-thirds of them are single family attached product, which would be town homes. The
roadway system is currently shown as 29 feet back of curb to back of curb. Staff is
recommending one additional condition to just define that in order to meet fire
department concerns, which would be the 29 feet from front of curb to front of curb. So,
they are going to just have to up that six inches in there for a minor, minor redesign.
With that, the -- there is one issue in the staff report and it does indicate that the date of
the preliminary plat is July 13th in a couple of situations. This plat was amended for
July 20th. And so all references to July 13th should be July 20th and that would be the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1. 2005
Page 74 of 90
date of the preliminary plat upon which the staff report is based. At this time to, and due
to the hour, I will stand for questions and keep it short.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Would you just give me that date and change again.
Guenther: July 20th.
Moe: 20th instead of the --
Guenther: July 13th.
Moe: 13th. Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward.
Leavitt: Honorable Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Reese Leavitt, I'm with
Leavitt and Associates Engineers in Nampa. I'm the project engineer for Breinholt
Subdivision. Represent the owners. I have reviewed the staff report with them and the
conditions of approval and they are in agreement with the staff report and concur with
the conditions of approval, except for a couple of concerns. With the amended
proposal, the number of lots was reduced from 22 to 20 build-able lots. I just want to
mention that. And one concern that they have has to do with the condition of approval -
- of approval general requirement preliminary plat. It's item 1.2.6, which has to do with
trees that are four inch caliper and bigger in replacement. There is a couple -- several
cottonwood trees out there that were just getting started when the dinosaurs were dying
out and they have grown to a considerable size. They are nearly the size of cars at the
base and these monsters are probably a hazard to the project. I understand that they
are considered as waste trees and I just want to make sure that this condition would not
be applied to these trees. The owner is concerned that if that be the case, by the time
he gets through planting trees there might not be any room for any buildings. So, I want
to present that just as a question and a concern. The application is consistent with the
zoning ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan. The project will benefit the public interest
by providing diverse housing type. According to the annexation and zoning analysis this
is a good location for the proposed housing. The requested zoning and proposed
density are harmonious, appropriate, and consistent with existing development in the
near vicinity. And we are in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval and
urge you to approve the project. I will be happy to stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I do have a question on -- well, may be a comment. If the trees -- contact the
parks department and they determine which are the junk trees and which ones need to
be mitigated. But a cottonwood I don't think are in that category, are they?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 75 of 90
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, typically with old trees that are of a soft wood nature,
which would be willow or a cottonwood, they are extremely hollow in the middle and
Elroy is very good about calling them out as junk trees.
Borup: That's what I thought. Just a question on the -- I have got two plats here. One
of them shows Voyager going through and the other does not.
Guenther: The amended plat shows Voyager going through.
Borup: It does?
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: So, we do have four access points.
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: Any comment on that?
Leavitt: The owner desired that it not go through, but it was an ACHD condition or
recommendation. So, the amended plat shows it going through.
Borup: ACHD?
Zaremba: They left.
Borup: I mean it has no logic in my mind. Other than it's there. But just because, you
know, somebody screwed up 25 years ago, you live with it now.
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, staff did work with the applicant on this and we did
recommend that Voyager be vacated, but the two houses in this location, as I'm
showing, take access approximately 20 feet off of the northern border and this is a
fenced off area currently and they just said it was easiest just to continue the extra six
feet up, rather than trying to vacate that easement or that right of way, so --
Borup: Don't have to worry about any access streets being blocked here, then.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Leavitt: Thank you.
Zaremba: Signed up to speak, Ed Sweet.
Breinholt: Commissioner?
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 76 of 90
Breinholt: I would like to be recognized first if that's all right. I'm the owner.
Zaremba: Okay. Please come forward.
Breinholt: I don't need to take a lot of time. For the record, my name is Richard
Breinholt. I'm the owner of the property in question here. And my address is 1976 Star
Lane in Meridian. I believe the staff has done a really good job of addressing any
concerns and issues. The reason for the second application is that we originally applied
to have the Voyager not continue through and the engineers have talked to ACHD and
they insist that it becomes a legal issue where they have required people to plat that
and build it, that stub there, and so it needs to go through. But, in my opinion, it doesn't
improve the quality of the neighborhood or the quality of the traffic flow or the amenities
around it. And so we tried to -- originally to apply it with -- or apply for the subdivision
without Voyager continuing through. And it was pretty cut and dried that they wanted
that through and so that's what we have done. Having said that, I don't want to take a
lot of time. I think that the engineers and the staff have done a great job and that it's a
pretty clean job on the subdivision. But I did want to be recognized, so I could let you
know I'm here and interested and, if necessary, I'd like to rebut.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Breinholt: Any questions?
Borup: Any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. Now, Mr. Sweet, please.
Sweet: Good evening, Chairman and staff. I am the property owner. Could we bring
up that other --
Zaremba: And would you, please, state your name.
Sweet: Yes. Ed Sweet. 2640 North Meridian Road. Okay. That section that you
referred to earlier right there is -- I am the property owner of. I do have to apologize for
not getting a copy of that plat and knowing about that last comment, I'd like to state
about -- that Voyager was not going through. It seems highly impractical, I think, to run
a stub -- a street stub through there. This comes down, crosses, and is right at that
property line. So, you got a tremendous creek that runs right there.
Borup: That stub wasn't going to your property.
Sweet: Okay.
Borup: Just the one that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 77 of 90
Sweet: See, with that through -- I'm trying to understand what the through means, you
know, somehow going across, but, actually, that -- it will stop on our property line; is that
correct?
Borup: It just goes through that street.
Zaremba: Through the extra six feet to connect to the cross street.
Sweet: Okay.
Zaremba: Only the one on the far east goes through.
Sweet: Okay. That clarifies that. Because we do have a concern, we are in the
process of doing a plat on that back five acres, so -- and I think it was clarified that -- if
I'm correct, that there will be a sewer and water stub brought in that access. The
reason I say that is say -- if you could bring up that other site? Originally, when John
Ewing with Fothergill Subdivision was developing that, that right there was a cul-de-sac,
which landlocked that property. It was impractical to come across here for access,
because of the narrowness, but the road system for that, besides the slough crossing,
Meridian and Ada County came in and said you have to change that. Not only did they
do that, but they were to run sewer and water stubs to that property. Come to find out,
checking with the engineer, was they didn't run that deep enough. Through our
discussions, when this -- before this was developed, that was one of the conditions. So,
we have -- my understanding, we have worked out that sewer and water does come
through -- will be coming through an access here. They have that property back there.
But I wanted to just put that on the record that that's the plan for that sewer and water to
be able to handle that acreage back there and I believe the sewer department has
planned that. They haven't got anything on that part. The other thing I just want to kind
of make sure is the irrigation that irrigates that whole property and this property comes
right -- comes down through here and is actually on this property. And, then, it does cut
in and this is discharging in there. When that development is done that whole ditch
would be covered up and so on and pressurized irrigation will be provided, but I want to
make sure that I still have the irrigation water rights to be able to continue to irrigate --
flood irrigate the way that land has been done for a hundred years, so -- and, then, I see
there is an adjustment to the lot size. I was just kind of curious how those lots would fit
in that type of parcel, 25 total lots, three common lots, but I see it was moved out a little
bit. That's my comments. So, any questions I can help answer at this time?
Zaremba: And you're comfortable with the one stub street that goes through the east
end of this property?
Sweet: Yes. That's correct. That will -- from our initial meetings with the city, yeah, that
street will go and, then, it will come out there from that -- and provide the access for that
development in there. So, yeah, that one through stub, yeah, is agreeable, and we
agree upon that, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 78 of 90
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions?
Moe: Not a question, but just a statement. The sewer and water are in that road to go
up and -- on the -- was that Largemont Avenue?
Sweet: Right. That was sewer and water, but I just wanted to make sure that the size
of stub they run through is continued to be able to handle that back five acres. That's
all. Because the way it was supposed to be, that was up at the other end on -- that's
Hawk up there. But when we went and talked with the city about that, to make sure
everything was okay, come to find out those were not large enough sizes to handle that
proposed development, so --
Moe: Well, per plan it's an eight-inch.
Sweet: Eight inch?
Moe: And I can guarantee you that's fine.
Sweet: We figured we would have to go that way, so -- okay.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. That's all who were signed up. Anybody else care to add
anything? Mr. Breinholt, do you care to respond or conclude? Final remarks? Okay.
Mr. Leavitt, then.
Leavitt: Reese Leavitt. We would be happy to work with Mr. Sweet on this sewer to
make sure that we keep it low enough to take care of the needs to serve his properties.
Existing irrigation we will protect that supply, so that he can continue to flood irrigate
that little section. I think those were the only concerns and questions that he had and
we will be happy to work with him on the project.
Zaremba: Those were the big ones that related to your project, I believe, so --
Leavitt: Yes.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Staff?
Guenther: Not at this time.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any deliberation or discussion?
Borup: I think it's pretty cut and dried, wasn't it?
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion to close the public hearings?
recognizes Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
The chair
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 79 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the public hearings on
AZ 05-037 and PP 05-036.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file number
AZ 05-037 and PP 05-036, as presented in the staff report dated August 24th, 2005,
and the plat dated -- is there changes on that?
Guenther: July 20th.
Newton-Huckabay: July 20th, 2005. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Item 19:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 200
building lots and 21 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of
Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single family detached residential units and
single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile
Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Zaremba: All right. I will open Public Hearing AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039.
These all relate to Irvine Subdivision at Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard and I will
entertain a motion to continue all three of those to our meeting of September 15th,
2005.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 80 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm on a roll now. I recommend we continue AZ 05-038, PP 05-
037, and CUP 05-039, to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on September --
Zaremba: 15th.
Newton-Huckabay: -- 15th.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: September 15th.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion caries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.89
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road:
Item 22:
Public Hearing: PP 05-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27
single-family residential building lots and 4 other common area lots on
7.89 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road:
Zaremba: All right. And we will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-034 and PP 05-033,
both relating to Caymus Cove Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Caymus Cove is
originally a Craig Hood project, Craig had to go get married during the middle of it, so I
took it over, so I will give my presentation on this and, hopefully, it's close enough to
what the applicant worked with Craig on in the beginning. The preliminary plat includes
27 residential lots, going through an R-8 standard subdivision with a variance for block
length. The variance was not included in this application, but it is for the cul-de-sac
length, but this has been addressed for -- because of the emergency access point that
will be a connection over to McMillan Road, with the bridge or culvert over the Lemp
Canal in order to provide for emergency access to the public road, the length of that
block of the cul-de-sac. With that the Lemp Canal is all along Meridian Road here and if
you look at the landscape plan you will see that there is, actually, two small canals
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 81 of 90
there. One of them is a -- just a local canal and, then, the Lemp Canal is a significant
canal. It's -- I think the applicant stated that it would take a 72 inch pipe in order to
actually put it underground and so this is mostly not going to be tiled and hasn't been
tiled along most sections of McMillan Road. Staff has just requested that the applicant
contact -- I believe it's Settler's Irrigation District and provide a letter saying Settler's
does not require it to be tiled and, then, that would be -- the tiling requirement will be
waived. And with that the applicant has proposed a 33-foot wide landscape buffer,
because approximately eight feet of the front of that landscape buffer to McMillan Road
is the Lemp Canal. So, he is going to provide the 25-foot landscaping with a berm,
fence, and a detached sidewalk, which can be accessed from the emergency access,
which will most likely have bollards on it. The Meridian city fire department standard
condition says a swing gate or other method. Typically, with this type of development
they would put the bollards in there, which would be acceptable as well. They would
just have to work with the fire department on that issue. Let me go back to the site plan
here. There is an existing home here that has this very odd shaped parcel and the
exiting home on the Caymus Cove site is located on I believe Lot 24, with out buildings
on Lot 25 as well. With that there is some buildings that straddle lot lines, as well as
older buildings, which will be removed, but the main -- I believe it's a shed or a barn will
stay on one lot, as well as the existing home will remain on the other of the larger lots in
the location. Immediately north of that site there is an access road for future
development of the parcel to the east. Again, it's the last parcel to the east and if I go
back to this one, as you can see by the platting around here, this is Bridgetower
Crossing. There is three phases of Bridgetower that have already been final platted
around this area. Once Caymus Cove is incorporated, then, this small parcel with the
one home is the last one that is to be developed there. So, we -- or Craig had asked
them to bring in -- I'm sorry, I'm going the wrong way. So, Craig has asked them to
bring in an access lot, which is the lot here -- it's shown as a 25 foot lot, as well as it's
also showing a fire plug in the middle of it, which the applicant has indicated they will
relocate that fire plug and make that lot 30 foot wide, in case this parcel upon
redevelopment comes in with more than one home, that they have adequate access to
that. The existing driveway that is for the access for the existing Caymus Cove home
will be fenced off as shown by the landscape plan. They will be allowed to take access
to McMillan from that gravel driveway until such time as the road system within Caymus
Cove has been developed and, then, they will have to, most likely, access that common
lot and, then, to North Station Place. Staff is not overly concerned with that. It's an
ACHD condition that no lots within Caymus Cove, which includes the existing residence,
shall take access to McMillan and none of these lots bordering that gravel driveway
shall take access to that gravel driveway, which is fairly standard. With that I believe I
have covered everything I need to and I will stand for questions if needed.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 82 of 90
Moe: The lots to the west, are -- what are these? Are they R-8's? The reason I ask
that is in the Comp Plan all this area is -- is noted to be low density and so I'm just
curious what is on the rest at the present time?
Guenther: Right. The areas of Bridgetower was an R-4 with a planned d,evelopment.
With the planned development -- I guess this aerial photograph doesn't show it. There
is a very large open space through the middle of it, as well as they have larger lots -- as
you can see, these lot are significantly larger. And, then, they did a mixed type of
development. Their smallest lots are the ones closest to Caymus Cove and they are
the ones closest to McMillan Road. With that all of lots are minimum of -- I believe they
are 6,500 square feet and many of them approach the R-4 standard.
Moe: No. I was going to say, I think it transitions okay. That's why I was just curious
what was on the west to see how it transitioned into there and they are small enough
that --
Guenther: Right. Reduced lots for the Bridgetower.
Moe: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Just a comment on page three, paragraph F, subdivision plat information,
number nine, I think was a typo.
Guenther: The correct number is 3.74 dwelling units to the acre, not 8.74 dwelling units
to the acre. That has been corrected for the City Council already.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. And in that case we are ready for the applicant.
Boyle: Planning comission members, Clint Boyle with Landmark -- Landmark
Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. It's a
pleasure to be here this evening. I should have went with my gut instinct and actually
tucked my kids into bed before I showed up here, but that's okay. I showed up about
8:30. Haven't spent the entire evening. So, appreciate you guys wading through a lot
of these items this evening. We have worked most of the issues with the staff. Just a
couple of comments as was noted by the Planning Commission very briefly and that is
with this project we have tried to transition the lots. Bridgetower Crossing immediately
west of us in the patio home or town-home area, those lots are around 5,500 square
feet it size and, then, as you come over you get into some of the larger lot, so they are
eight to ten thousand square feet. If you look at our plat, we tried to put our smallest
lots up against the townhouse lots and, then, the larger ones are on the east side of the
plat for Caymus Cove. So, again, just trying to promote that transition between the lots.
And as far as the street itself, this particular piece of property was only provided one
stub street by Bridgetower and that was down at the south end of property on Station in
this location here. That is the only stub street to this property. We have had some
discussions on the front end with staff, with ACHD, and, obviously, with other driveways
and whatnot on McMillan, the recommendation was that we bring this in, we cul-de-sac
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 83 of gO
it and provide an emergency access only coming in off of McMillan. Everything else
falls well within the threshold that ACHD has for the amount of traffic on the local streets
and it works out very well. So, we are excited to bring this in. It is, essentially,
surrounded by development. The staff hit on the canals. There is a very large canal
along McMillan and, just to clarify, they do want to leave that open. The Bridgetower
Crossing has some commercial further to the west of the townhouse area and I believe
maybe even the townhouse area where they piled it in front of that location or where
they specifically have commercial uses and townhouses, but everywhere else as you
head to the east along that canal through many different projects, Settler's Bridge -- you
could probably rattle off a bunch of them. The school that just opened, that canal is
open that entire lane. So, again, we are -- due to the size and the extensive size of that
canal, requesting that it remain open. I've had discussion with the irrigation district. I
don't have a written letter out of them yet, but verbal on the phone they don't have any
problem with us leaving that untiled, leaving it open. So, again, that is the approach that
we are going to take with that and I believe that the large canal is actually the Settler's
Canal and the Lemp is the small user ditch that's immediately adjacent to it, is my
understanding from talking to the irrigation district. So, just to clarify that, I think that
Settler's is the very large canal that's on McMillan and the Lemp is the little user canal
that's adjacent to the Lemp we will tile, but the Settler's we'd like to remain open. I'll
answer any questions and appreciate you letting us run it a little late this evening.
Zaremba: Commissioner, any questions?
Borup: No questions. Just a comment for Mr. Boyle. Next time you decide -- when you
do decide to come late, everything before you, you know, will either be continued or
postponed or something.
Boyle: That's the risk you always run. But I thought about setting up a new business
and just having a high school kid or something come and sit here and just call you up,
you know, a couple items before you're up. Might not be a bad idea.
Rohm: I thought that same way myself.
Zaremba: Just to clarify, apparently you are working with this property owner that is not
a part of it. They are not wishing to be annexed at this time?
Boyle: That's my understanding. I believe they are here this evening and the
discussion in the neighborhood meeting -- we did hold a neighborhood meeting. They
were in attendance and I believe there was one property owner for Bridgetower that I
think we addressed all their concerns from that particular neighbor and those were the
only people who were in attendance at the neighborhood meeting. And my
understanding was that they did not want to annex at this particular point in time. What
we have done in working with the staff was provide the common lot and we agreed to
have it 30 feet wide. We will provide an ingress-egress easement over it, so at a point
in time when this property splits into two or three parcels or whatever may happen
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 84 of 90
there, that they can come in through this project and, then, that access to McMillan will
be totally abandoned. The existing gravel drive. That's been our discussion.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Zaremba: All right. We do have a couple people signed up and I will begin with Donald
Kelso, please. Is he still here? He may have escaped. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Was he for or against?
Zaremba: Next would be Steve Tolman.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Was the first person that's not here, for or against the project?
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I should have said that. He is marked as being for.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Tolman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission. I'm Steve Tolman. I live at 2695
West McMillan, which is the property to the east, which is approximately -- well,
including the driveways, 1.6 acres and currently is county and in discussions with your
planning staff, what your position is, that you have not typically done forced annexations
and so I wish to make it known at this point that I do not wish to be annexed and I wish
to remain in the county and that's my request as property owner and I hope that you will
consider that. Just a couple of additional items in relation to that point, I have lived in
this property approximately two years and in the last three, three and a half years I
purchased it and it was sold one other time and also the Bridgetower development was
started up within that time frame. So, my thinking is that if you were going to annex,
that you would have done it when that Bridgetower development was going through the
approval. Didn't happen, then, so why should it happen now. One other point that -- I
don't know if it was addressed. We talked about the lots to the west in Bridgetower, but
the one thing that they have not addressed are the lots to the east in Bridgetower, which
are significantly larger lots, which has a cul-de-sac that runs parallel with McMillan,
which is all the grey area there that's not on your map yet, but now it is completed and I
believe most of those have been sold. So, there is some lot size conflict in that area
and with my lot. I marked the "neutral" box, but I could be on the "against" box, I guess,
in certain circumstances. So, that's just -- you know, those lots -- some of them have
been sold, but I'm sure that those people who purchased those lots were not notified of
this public meeting, because I'm sure that their property records were not updated,
because it has happened recently. A couple other points where the -- as I guess as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 85 of 90
was mentioned the private lane, my hope is that that will remain, just to put that on the
public record. And I guess the access point into their new street, just one question or
clarification. Now, if that is in the future developed and would be annexed, is that the
point where water and sewer would be accessed for my property?
Zaremba: That question we will pass onto staff.
Guenther: Typically, yes, there is going to be a sewer connection that will be available
through that common lot and -- and that's where the future sewer extension would occur
and, then, your existing access, as long as you remain in the county, we wouldn't be
opposed to maintaining that McMillan access. It's an ACHD policy that when you
redevelop that your arterial access be eliminated and they have been very consistent
with that in other locations in the city. So, until such time as your -- most likely your
septic fails and you're forced to hook up for other reasons, then, your annexation would
be when that would occur and it would be through that ingress-egress access to North
Station Place.
Tolman: So, that would be stubbed to the property line?
Guenther: That is proposed to stub to your property line, but it would be available to
you through that ~- through their connection.
Tolman: Okay. Do you have any questions? I guess that summarizes my comments.
Try to keep it brief and get us all home for some sleep.
Rohm: I have a question. What would be your opposition to annexation? I mean it
appears to me that you're going to be receiving all the services that the adjacent
properties are that are within the city. Just curious, what's your opposition?
Tolman: Well, my understanding is you basically lose many rights and options when
you are annexed, being that you cannot have your own private lane, you cannot have
livestock, you cannot use your existing -- you lose your investment in the livestock
facilities that you have from what I was told by -- who did I talk to? Craig, I believe, is
who I have spoken with that told me that. I mean I don't know if that's correct or not, but
that's not desirable to me, so that's why --
Rohm: I was just curious.
Guenther: He is correct, Craig was given the correct information. We don't have an
agricultural zone.
Tolman: So, you're saying that I have no grandfather right?
Guenther: There is always grandfather rights, we just don't have an agricultural zone if
you wanted to maintain livestock.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 86 of 90
Tolman: SO, you're saying I could have had them there for a hundred years, but that
doesn't matter?
Borup: No.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, it's up to you whether you want staff to comment or not,
so we will take direction from you.
Zaremba: I was kind of deciding who, whether it would be Mr. Nary or you. But, yes, if
you would, please.
Canning: The new Unified Development Code has nonconforming -- it would become a
nonconforming use upon annexation. So, there is a nonconforming use, there is
nonconforming structures, and nonconforming property. Thank you. But if it ceased for
any period of time, then, it -- within those provisions, it could not restart.
Tolman: So how about upon sale? Could you transfer those rights?
Canning: They run with the property if the use continues.
Tolman: So, as long as you have no more than a six-month lapse you could continue
them?
Canning: Yeah. And I think it's actually longer than six months, but I'm not sure at this
point -- I'd have to check on the particulars, yeah, as long as the use continued and
didn't expand, it could continue. The ownership doesn't affect that.
Tolman: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I just had one clarification question, Mr. Tolman. I think I understand what
you're saying about the annexation, but are you in favor of this egress access to your
property as -- you really didn't make a statement either way. Would you just as soon it
wasn't there or are you --
Tolman: I'm uncertain as to which one you're referring to.
Borup: The 3D-foot -- the one that the staff required them to increase from 25 to 30 feet
to allow you to --
Tolman: I'm kind of neutral on that. I see it, maybe, as a potential benefit if I was to
ever sell, have some possibility of development. That's about the only positive I see to
it.
Borup: And the negative was what?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 87 of 90
Tolman: Well, that it may lead to sooner annexation than without.
Borup: Well, I think the city has already stated that. And the only benefit is to you. I
mean, you know, to allow you to develop that. Otherwise, without that it sounds like you
would not be able to do anything with your property, other than what it is now.
Tolman: Now, what would happen -- okay. Say that that did happen, to have the 25
foot -- 24, 25 foot driveway that the lane -- what happens to that property?
Borup: That would still be part of this subdivision, but an access easement into yours, is
my understanding. So, you would have rights to build a road over that to access Station
Place. Is that what it is? Otherwise, you're landlocked.
Tolman: Yeah. I understand that. But--
Borup: It was done as a benefit for your property.
Tolman: It's harder and harder to find land, so that's why I'm staying put.
Borup: Yeah. It makes sense. Especially acreage like that. Thank you.
Tolman: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Actually, I had two lists and now that I look at the second list
there are more people. So, I will ask Brian Cooper -- marked as for, but he indicates
from the audience he has nothing to add. Kevin Churchman. Marked as for. Has
nothing to add. Merrill Smith -- Mark. I'm sorry. That's Mark Smith. Okay. He's
marked as for and indicates he has nothing to add. Stephanie Churchman. Okay.
She's marked as for and has nothing to add. So, that's all the sign-up sheet. Anybody
who didn't sign up who cares to comment? Okay. Okay. We are ready for the
applicant to come back.
Boyle: Planning commission members, again, Clint Boyle. There really isn't a whole lot
to add. We have tried to accommodate the Tolmans by providing that common lot with
the ingress-egress easement and utility easement over it. So, again, in the future if they
wanted to do something with their property, they have that availability there. And, then,
all these lots in our development are proposed to go out to Station Place, including the
existing home. There will be fencing there. The Tolmans will still have their existing
gravel drive on the interim basis until they do something with their property. So, I think
that it is a benefit for them what we are proposing here. That's something that the staff,
in working with them, had asked that we do and it just makes good sense for the future,
I believe. As far as the transitional lots, again, our small lots are on the west adjacent to
the 5,500 square foot lots. We have lots that are, you know, 6,500 square foot lots up
to some 7,OOOs. On the east side of our project, you start down with the cul-de-sac,
there is 14,000 square feet, 11, nine, 14, 17, 14, seven, several eights, a ten as you go
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 88 of 90
further north. So, again, I mean I think it's a really good mix and we certainly looked at
Bridgetower and what they have done and tried to make this a good transition between
us and them. We are tying our sidewalk into the Bridgetower system. It's a sidewalk
that's actually south of that major canal and Bridgetower is already running those
sidewalks and we will tie into the sidewalk system and just try to make this integrate just
as well as we could with the constraints that we were given. And with that we
respectfully ask for your approval this evening and, again, appreciate your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Thank you very much.
Boyle: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any discussion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-034 and PP 05-033.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-034
and PP 05-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005,
and received August 29th, 2005, with no changes. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision Revised by
Conger Management Group - west of North Locust Grove Road and
south of Chinden Boulevard:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2005
Page 89 of 90
Item 24:
Public Hearing: PP 05-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
building lots and 3 common lots on 4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
The Reserve Subdivision Revised by Conger Management Group -
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chin den Boulevard:
Zaremba: Okay. I will open the public hearings AZ 05-035 and PP 05-034, relating to
Reserve Subdivision and entertain a motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of AZ 05-035 and
PP 05-034.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Was that a withdrawal or a continuance? Withdrawal.
Zaremba: Their actual letter asked to withdraw it. I realize on our cover sheet it said
continuance. But their letter actually asked to withdraw.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a couple of seconds. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? We are adjourned.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1,2005
Page 90 of 90
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :52 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED: