2005 10-20
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetina
October 20. 2005
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 20, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
-.
-.-"--.
Members_- -Erese_nt: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
- Commissioner Weiìdy_~~~on-Huckabay and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commis;¡~-;:;¡:-r\lfichael Rohm.
-~.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Mike Cole,
Joe--'Guenther, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis.
---/~
--.~
- .../
~~
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-Call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian for October 20, 2005. We will
begin with a roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we will take all of
these items in order, but in case anybody is interested in Items 8, 9, 10 and 11, they all
relate to Durango Springs Subdivision and we have a request from the applicant to
continue that. The latest request is to continue it to December 15th. So, when we get
to Items 8, 9, 10 and 11, our only action, without discussion, will be to continue those to
December 15th. If you're here for some of the other things, we will hear them all
tonight. Okay. Unless I hear otherwise, we will consider the agenda adopted. So be it.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
05-002 Request for modification of approved CUP 03-067 to allow
for the operation of a 2,200 square foot convenience store and to
eliminate the coffee stand for Cedar Springs Professional Center
by Robert Montgomery - northeast corner of Venable Lane and
Ustick Road:
B.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 05-
032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single-family
residential building lots and 7 common area lots on 2.91 acres in a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 2 of 37
proposed R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landwords, LLC -
675 South Linder Road:
Zaremba: And now to the Consent Agenda. These are items that --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: -- we can approve in bulk, unless somebody has something they wish to
change about them. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't want to change one, I just -- I don't know if this is an
appropriate time, but I received a letter and I'm guessing that the rest of you -- from Ed
Jenkins, Junior.
Moe: Yes. I received that also.
Newton-Huckabay: And it was in an envelope.
Zaremba: I don't believe I received that. Relating to which item?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, he just makes some comments on our October 17th hearing
and our September 22nd hearing.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: I could address that real quickly. That, actually, addresses the North
Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I know that. I just received the letter -- I mean we all received
it and I just want to know --
Borup: But it doesn't have anything to do with the Consent Agenda.
Newton-Huckabay: No. I said that. Listen to what I mean, not what I say.
Moe: I knew what you meant.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would like to discuss this letter very shortly just to make
sure that this gentleman's concerns have been addressed. I don't want somebody to
think I got a letter and didn't pay any attention to it.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And staff also received that letter and we have insured that the
clerk's office received it and it will be part of the record for the City Council Public
Hearing on that item for sure, but we will also call him and discuss his concerns.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 3 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: That was my main concern, that he --
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you for bringing that up.
Zaremba: Did he get a response?
Hawkins-Clark: We will definitely make sure that happens. I think he wanted to make
sure that the Commissioners also knew that this was a pending matter, even though
you have already moved it on, but --
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I will ask before the evening is out to read your copy.
Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Sorry.
Zaremba: No. That's fine. Appreciate your -- okay. So, the question still hangs. Any
amendments to the Consent Agenda?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: I would accept a motion to accept the Consent Agenda.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Presentation: Traffic Calming by Ross Oyen, Traffic Engineering
Supervisor, ACHD.
Zaremba: Next item on our agenda -- we are very pleased to have Ross Oyen here
representing ACHD. He is a traffic-engineering supervisor for them. We often have
questions about traffic through various subdivisions that we are being asked to consider
and Ross has consented to come late this evening and present us with some ideas
about traffic calming that will help us be more educated Commissioners and I
appreciate your coming, Ross.
Oyen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be with you again.
Zaremba: We do need to ask you to start with your name and address, I believe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 4 of 37
Oyen: Very well. My name is Ross Oyen, 3775 Adams Street, Garden City.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Oyen: I promised the chairman that I would be brief and traffic calming and
neighborhood traffic management is a very broad topic. It can cover a multitude of
situations and certainly we don't have the amount of time it would take to go in depth in
all those situations. So, what I have -- what I have kind of taken as an approach here
tonight is that I would offer you comments based on the new development that comes
before planning and zoning, more so than the retrofits that we very often see requests
for at the highway district. So, with that we will kind of get into the slides, if we could get
going. So, traffic-calming objectives are really fairly straightforward most of the time.
Item one is that we are trying to manage vehicle speeds and particularly in residential
formats. The second thing we are trying to do is typically with them is minimize cut-
through traffic, make certain that we don't have attractive routes that are undesirable
through residential development for traffic that should be on our classified roadways, on
our collectors and our arterials. And we want to provide safe streets for all the users.
So, we want to make sure that pedestrians, cyclists, you know, all users of the streets
have a condition that they are comfortable with. So, one concept that comes out here is
the concept of pre-calming. There really isn't anything that you see as traffic calming in
a pre-calm situation. What you -- the approach is kind of an engineering or a
development approach in which you minimize straight street segment length and that --
between control points and a control point would be an uncontrolled T intersection or a
stop controlled four leg intersection. So, fairly short street segment lengths. Or,
alternatively, curvilinear streets or streets with curved segments in them that limit sight
distance and, therefore, can limit vehicle speeds just rather organically without the need
to impose anything more restrictive in the roadway. So, onto the next one. Traffic
calming methods. We are going to talk about up and down and side to side. Up and
down measures are things like speed humps and speed tables. They are really
effective in reducing speeds. We have some indication that they are effective as well in
dealing with cut-through issues. But they do definitely have their down sides. Pretty
much every place that we have installed speed humps we have had a very happy group
of customers and we have had a very unhappy group of customers. Even in that case
where most of the customers are happy, the ones who have the humps actually in front
of their homes may not be too happy. If they don't have the hump in front of their home,
they may not be happy with the sign that is in front of their picture window that says
bump ahead. And those things are things that we have to put in when we put in speed
humps. So, there are just some down sides to these things. There is a noise factor that
comes along with them. There is some indication that some users of the roadway will
tend to accelerate quickly passed -- once they cross the humps to the next one, slow
down, and repeat the process. So, they are not fool proof, but they are effective in
reducing speeds and so they are part of our toolbox. However, for new development,
the things that typically are coming before P&Z, I would encourage you to consider the
things that I'm going to talk about next, which are side-to-side features and that includes
chicanes and chokers, which are really mid block applications typically, median islands,
which can be mid block or at intersections or throughout a segment of roadway. Bulb
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 5 of 37
outs, which, again, are typically -- or those can also be termed as -- there is another
term for them and I'll think of it and we will get to that part of it, but bulb outs are typically
an intersection treatment. Traffic circles are distinctly an intersection treatment typically.
However, you can apply them, again, on the mid block basis. So, a chicane. There is
a picture of one and not a -- I apologize, not a great picture. Just didn't get the
resolution. I pulled this one off of the internet. I believe it came from -- from the Seattle
area, is my recollection. Seattle or Portland. Out of their manual. You have had the
chicane debate with Hollybrook and so I won't belabor the point. The concepts, just as
a reminder, an alignment shift slows traffic and I think I have a pointer here, so -- so
here we build a feature that requires the driver to shift direction of flow and, then, we
build another out here and that requires an S turn, basically. Street width is also
reduced. If you look at this width, that's really narrow. That's probably a little narrower
than I would recommend on any streets, because that's getting really close to one-way
traffic. And with Hollybrook we looked at trying to keep it so that it was two lanes width,
so that you had two way traffic, but you still neck it down from the 36 foot or 33 foot
street width you start with, depending on your application. And, of course, the -- and an
up side or a down side, depending on your point of view, is that reduction in on-street
parking is typical with the chicanes. You just have to take away some parking to
introduce this feature. I put the choker slide in here. This one, unfortunately, is a little
bit muddy. It's from Australia, as you can tell, because the traffic signs are on the wrong
side of the road and the cars are parked on what we would regard as the wrong side of
the road. The thing about chokers is pretty consistently in the literature, the manuals
from other jurisdictions, what you find is that they will say effective when width is
reduced to one lane. If you choke the street down, but allow for two-way traffic, the
reductions in speed that you typically see are pretty minimal. A couple miles an hour,
maybe. So, not very great. But they can -- you know, it can have a visual impact and
so you shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, but, typically, if you put them in and you
really want to get a reduction in speeds, you're going to have to take it down to one
lane. So, that means only a low volume street and a street that's pretty low speeds to
begin with, because you, essentially, are setting up a mid block yielding condition for
different directions of traffic and we don't do that on a typical basis, of course.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have any in town?
Oyen: No, we don't have any that are reduced to one lane in town and, in fact, choke
conditions are -- we have got a couple of mid block areas that have been choked and
I'm thinking choked from what the adjoining width is and I'm thinking -- I want to say on
15th Street at Washington school we actually extended a curb out there and that
functions somewhat like a choker and that's in Boise in the north end. But as far as
applying true chokers on a -- you know, on a traffic calming basis, we really haven't
done much of that. Did that answer your question? Median islands are actually
something that we are going to attempt on 15th Street to provide some pedestrian
refuge at intersections and so they will be very narrow islands, they will only be about
six feet wide. They are intended to divert traffic over a few feet, which has a tendency
to make the driver hesitate a little bit, give up a little bit of speed. Also provides a mid
crossing refuge point for pedestrians and that has to be a minimum of six feet wide in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 6 of 37
order to provide that refuge. As you can see, this one's from Bellevue, Washington, and
you can see that one's probably on the order of more like eight to ten feet. It provides --
it reduces lane width on either side of the island. That's something that has to be kind
of dealt with in consideration of emergency services, fire -- you know, fire vehicle
passage and things like that. But it really does have some nice benefits on the
pedestrian side of things. Bulb outs -- the other term for them that I couldn't think of at
first is curb extensions. So, a lot of times if you're looking in the literature you won't find
the term bulb outs, but you will curb extensions and it's the same thing. In these you will
see in the Hyde Park area in Boise's north end, as a -- kind of a typical -- so we have
these areas where this -- the curb line is wider beyond the intersection than it is at the
intersection, can be used to provide kind of a gateway feel to a street. Has a real
benefit here of shortening pedestrian crossing distance and making the pedestrian more
visible when they are waiting to make a crossing movement. They are -- they are out
there, rather than kind of hidden in the background or hidden at the curb line with the
parked vehicles. So, they don't get lost in the visual clutter that can occur in a -- you
know, in kind of a busy environment. So, they are good from that regard. A caveat that
I always pass along with features like this where you're extending curbs or narrowing
roadways, you have to consider some large vehicles are going to have to make the turn,
even in a residential application. So, you have to think in terms of school busses, you
have to think in terms of emergency service vehicles, garbage trucks, moving vans --
somehow or another they have to get into the street and so it can be made to work with
these, it's just -- it's a design element that we will look hard at and must be kept in mind.
And the last pretty picture in this really quick review -- traffic circles. These are used --
this picture is from Seattle and they have done quite a program of traffic circles in their
neighborhood traffic management program. They use traffic circles in lieu of two-way
stop control, stop signs at intersections, at lower volume intersections, and they have
found significant reductions in intersection crashes where they have applied these
things. Every manual that I have seen, including a perusal of their online information,
would indicate that they are very particular about making sure, again, that the large
vehicles, the emergency vehicles, busses, can pass. But as you see here, this feature
here is -- functions as what's called a truck apron. It's a curb that isn't really very
mountable for a passenger car or a -- you know, a light truck, but a bus or a dump truck
or something that has business in the neighbor and has to get through the intersection
and make a left turn, can maneuver its rear wheels up onto this truck apron. They have
actually put little reflectors up here, which I wouldn't necessarily advocate as a first
measure, but that's Seattle and it rains a lot and visibility is poor a lot of the time, I
suppose, and so it's the way they have chosen to deal with it. We really in -- for your
information, in Meridian we have -- and in the county at large -- in new development
where you have four legged intersections, we go ahead and require two way stop
control. So, we will pick one of the streets to put stop control on and we will typically
tend to alternate that, if you have a pattern or a series of four legged intersections, we
will alternate that pattern. The stop signs do two things. They assign right of way.
They make it very clear who has the right of way at the intersection and we have had
problems in the past with this at four legged intersections where everybody thinks they
have the right of way. So, putting the stop signs in kind of takes that issue out of play.
It's been pretty successful, again, in a broader application in Boise in the north end as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 7 of 37
well. But the other benefit that you get from it, though we don't install stop signs as a
traffic calming measure, you do, in effect, limit speeds, because you shorten up the
street segment that's available for driving without restriction. So, that's what we have
typically done to address the same issue at the low volume intersections. And the
reason why is because it's fairly cheap to put in a couple of stop signs. These things -- I
have a Las Vegas manual and they have traffic circles in their manual as well and they
say 20,000 as a -- kind of a minimum number, to 40,000. I think with new development
probably, since you have the contractor or on site, some of these things can be done
considerably cheaper, you know, because the -- again, the landscaping, if it's being
done as part of the development landscaping package, there is some economies that
can probably be had there, but they are relatively expensive compared to a couple of
stop signs. So, some things to consider -- and this is, by way of wrap up, because I
promised to be brief, integration with other objectives -- and by that I mean if you have a
school site that is identified as part of a new development, you're likely to have a school
crossing route that is preferred, you may want to have a mid block crossing location and
it may be a good place to consider -- to consider curb extensions, it may be a good
place to consider median islands. Landscaping comes into these things as well. The
role of landscaping is that it appears that a boulevard feel, you know, landscape
amenities in the context of a development seem to have a calming benefit kind on their
own, a psychological benefit. If you have got a tree-line street, the street appears to be
a bit narrower, and that tends to have a beneficial effect on speeds. Cost of installation
-- the reason I bring that up is just what I was talking about, for new development it's
probably not as big an issue as it would be if it was coming to me as a traffic calming
request, because, again, certainly -- I won't speak for the developers in the room,
certainly, but -- but many of these things, median islands, curb extensions, and
landscaping are part of the features that they use to -- you know, to make a marketable
property, make a nice -- you know, make a nice appearance for their product. So, it
goes right back to the integrated approach to the whole thing. Cost of maintenance has
to be considered, if there is something that's going to be given over to a governmental
entity, whether that's a -- you know, it could end up being a -- potentially a school
district, it could end up being highway district, could end up being parks and rec,
depending upon the context in which it's applied to a development, and so things -- they
are things to consider. Most of the things I have shown you have -- are not out of line
from a cost of maintenance standpoint, just have to be given some thought. And so
that's it for my remarks. I guess you can tell me now whether you had anticipated
something else and whether you have any questions that you'd like going forward.
Zaremba: That was excellent. Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have one.
Oyen: Okay.
Zaremba: Are you near enough to your microphone?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 8 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: Probably not. Okay. I'm going to stomp my feet and go home in a
minute here. I think you were here -- we had that lengthy conversation about chicanes
versus chokers and I never did walk away from that hearing with a clear idea of what
would be -- what is the more effective and popular way to do that, the choker or the
chicane.
Oyen: Commissioner, I think to -- I think the key point with chokers is unless you make
them a draconian measure, that is you basically make it one way traffic through the
choker, one car at a time through the choker, you don't get a lot of reduction in speed
and that's typically what you're looking at in calming measures -- or looking for. Traffic
calming -- basically two purposes, with an underlying safety sub text. Lower speeds.
Minimizing cut-through traffic. So, you have to take the choker and make it something
that we probably would prefer not to have in order to make it reduce speed. The
chicane -- you know, the benefit is it's probably a little bit cheaper to build them as a
retrofit than the chicane. In new construction the costs tend to come a little bit closer
together, because you're not taking an existing street and building two or three new
features on it for a chicane. So, again, the cost is less than if we go back in and, you
know, try and fix something that's straight now. In the chicane, by virtue of making the
vehicle go on an S-shaped path, will yield a speed reduction That's -- that's why the
tendency from the engineering standpoint to prefer chicane if you're really looking for
effective speed reduction.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks.
Oyen: I hope that wasn't too windy.
Newton-Huckabay: No. No. I was -- I was very curious on that after the one hearing
that we had.
Zaremba: Other questions?
Moe: I appreciate you coming in tonight.
Oyen: My pleasure.
Zaremba: Yeah. I think that was very helpful. Thank you very much.
Hood: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, I have one question.
Zaremba: Oh, absolutely.
Hood: Ross, I'm just curious on warrants for requesting these types of mitigation for
speeds. Do you guys have anything or is it just when an angry neighbor shows up at a
hearing and you say, yeah, let's put a chicane in or how do you evaluate those?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 9 of 37
Oyen: Good question, Mr. Hood. At this point in time we don't have a -- you know, an
adopted practice that says with new development thou shalt do this at this trigger, you
know, or when the street segment is this long. It is a bit of an art form, I guess you
might say, at this point in time. So, it's just going to require some collaboration between
staff and the Commissioners here and our staff and commissioners at the highway
district for -- you know, contrasting that with the speed hump request or traffic calming
request program that we have for speed humps on existing streets. That is, you know,
very numerically based and there is a -- you know, there is a process for it that is pretty
well cast in stone.
Hood: Mr. Chair, a follow up if I may?
Zaremba: Yes.
Hood: So, not talking about retrofitting, but more as a new development, typically the
Ada County Highway District has already acted on an application by the time it gets to
this body. What if we did want to put in -- or the Commission chose to require
something like this -- not to step on your toes, but how do you envision that working
back and forth, since your commission has already acted? Would a choker in a street
that's required by this body, how would you -- how do you envision that playing out, I
guess is what my question is.
Oyen: That's the -- you know, kind of the -- you know, the interface point between --
you know, between the jurisdictions, I suppose, you know, that -- and so, certainly, our
commissioners and our staff want to maintain a measure of input about what goes into
the -- what goes into the street in terms of traffic calming features and, you know, just
landscape features, the whole gamut. I guess being the traffic guy, rather than the
development guy, I didn't realize we were getting ahead of your process routinely and I
think if we -- you know, I think if there is -- you know, as a starting point, I think if there is
a concern on a development -- because you will see the application before we will at the
city -- if there is a concern, that probably ought to be discussed at staff level before it
goes to our commissioners. That would be my suggestion as a starting point and, then,
I think we work from the policy end of it to see if we can come up with a little bit more
joint consideration.
Zaremba: I think the most recent example from a month or two ago, whenever it was --
Oyen: Hollybrook.
Zaremba: Hollybrook. I was trying to remember the name. Thank you. Actually, our
concern was generated by the public testimony and we all looked at it and probably saw
the same thing that ACHD did, this is probably okay, and it was the public that said, no,
we don't think this is going to do it and in further thought we agreed with them and
asked the developer to go back to ACHD again. So, sometimes it's not an orderly
process.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 10 of 37
Oyen: Right. I think -- you know, I put a slide out there about pre-calm streets. The
ideas behind that pre-calming concept really come out of a paper that I read that was
presented at the Institute of Transportation Engineers at a seminar this summer. So,
there are new things evolving, new ideas evolving. The minimum -- or the -- you know,
the maximum street length segment between controls, you know, that's not a new
concept, certainly, but it's something that -- that is directly applicable to a condition like
Hollybrook where we had a straight length of street that was 900 or 1,000 feet, where
there is, you know, an opportunity to get some speed up and the concern, of course, is
that if you don't break it up with something, then, you have a potential for -- you know,
for a problem day one. So, better to address that in the development phase. But we
are gathering new ideas all the time.
Zaremba: You make a good point on the length. I think we have had in our ordinance
all along a thousand foot block length was the maximum and none of us ever quite
understood where that reasoning came from and I have always considered it a
convenience to vehicles and pedestrians that there be a break more often, but you
make a very solid case for -- that's too long a space to get up speed in the roads.
Oyen: And that really comes from some spacing guidelines between speed humps that
have been installed for traffic calming by jurisdictions elsewhere in the country. They
have kind of determined that if you have them any more than about five or six hundred
feet apart you get undesirable speeds in between the humps. So, that's where 600 feet
came from. But it is really somewhat of an empirically derived figure. That's not to say
that 800 is unacceptable, but, remember, too, when I talk about pre-calming, I said
those are invisible measures. Those are things that are just out there in the design. If
you take pre-calmed streets or streets where you don't quite get those pre-calm lengths
that you would like, you can apply some of these other side-to-side measures that are
rather passive, probably provide something of a visual amenity to the development, and
you can accomplish the same thing at probably a pretty reasonable cost at the outset.
And the -- you know, the developer has the opportunity to have -- to make it fit within the
context of their vision and we have the benefit of having something that's probably more
easily maintainable over time. So, there you go.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Very enlightening and informative.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Thank you.
Zaremba: Any other questions, including staff?
Borup: Maybe just a comment for staff along that block length is that's about how to
take these in consideration prior to it going to ACHD and I like the idea of maybe on
these longer block lengths having some type of calming may be a good offset to
approve the longer block lengths, assuming -- I mean some of the -- the way the block
lengths are defined don't always make sense to me, because it's not necessarily a
straightaway. I think that's what we are talking about here as a long block length that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 11 of 37
got a straightaway that -- maybe that would be the offset to allow that, is to have
something else in their design that counters that. I would be in favor of that.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. We are entering our Public
Hearing portion of the evening and let me just describe our procedure a little bit for
anybody who doesn't come to our meetings very often. Our professional staff and the
applicants have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of these projects and
what we do to begin with is have our professional staff give us a presentation describing
where the project is, what the project is, any issues that they believe are remaining to
be resolved and in this the staff is not advocating the project, they are just letting us
know how it complies or doesn't comply with the current ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan. Following the staff presentation, then, it's the applicant's
opportunity to actually advocate their project and to answer any issues that the
professional staff has raised. We ask the applicant to confine their testimony to 15
minutes, including any supporting cast they have, engineers and architects, and so
forth. Following that it's the opportunity for the public to tell us things they think we need
to know about it and, again, it may not be a problem tonight, but we often have a crowd
and we do ask that your testimony be limited to three minutes. The exception to that is
if we have a spokesman who is representing -- for instance, the president of a
homeowners association and representing all the members who are not going to speak,
then, we allow that spokesman to speak for ten minutes. Then, at the conclusion of the
general public testimony we do ask the applicant to have been taking notes all that time
and to come back up and respond. They have another ten minutes to clarify or fix
anything that they can at that point. Then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing,
we deliberate, and we make a recommendation to the City Council, where, again, there
will be another Public Hearing. We have a handy light system here. When the green
light is on you have time to speak. The yellow light will come on warning you that you
should begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on we ask that you do
conclude. We may, in addition to that, after you have used your time, we may ask you
questions, but try not to make our questions deduct from your time to make your
statements.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005: 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:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005, 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:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005: CUP 05-039
Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single
family detached residential units and single family attached residential
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 12 of 37
units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Zaremba: That being said, we appreciate you all being here and we will open the Public
Hearing -- actually, the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037 and
CUP 05-039, all relating to Irvine Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It looks like a slide
got a little off there, but Irvine Subdivision, actually, is the portion north of what is
outlined here. It is immediately east of Ten Mile and south of Chinden, and it is 38.5
acres. The applicant is requesting an R-8 zone for this. As you can see, it's currently
vacant -- vacant being agricultural in Meridian. And the request is for 200 building lots
and 21 common lots. The subdivision is broken into several distinct features. There is
single family residential to the south, which borders the Silverleaf Subdivision. Similar
lot sizes. There is also what staff is referring to as a MEW development, which is higher
density attached housing there in lots -- they are in Block 3 and 6 of this design and
they are attached housing -- I believe the applicant has submitted elevations of five-
plexes and six-plexes. The applicant did come back and submitted a revised drawing of
this one to include these parking lots for, essentially, overflow parking. These units will
-- will have their own parking structure with them, but staff felt that the additional parking
was required and the applicant addressed that adequately. The other issue -- the other
portion would be the alley-loaded products, which are just immediately south of -- I
believe that's Block 3. These lots are less than the R-8 standard, but do provide alley
access. Staff has made a condition that the alleys be named in order to provide -- or
not the alleys being named, but the -- I believe the alleys -- there was two or three alleys
to be named, because the MEW products do not provide frontage on a public road and,
therefore, for emergency services access and addressing the names of those alleys
would need to be incorporated, so that the five and six-plexes actually have a number to
them. With that, those alleys should be a minimum of 24 feet wide and that meets the
standards of what we have set for this type of a development where the alleyways in the
single-family residential product are 20 feet and not named. So, there is a little
difference between the two products that are out there -- or that are being presented.
The main issue for the repeated tablings of this item has been the -- determining how
much right of way to outline on the major intersection of Ten Mile and Chinden, due to
the fact that Ten Mile interchange will be the first major intersection to attach north
Meridian to south Meridian when Ten Mile interchange goes in in the near future -- the,
hopefully, nearer future, other than Eagle Road, and there is a higher demand for the
turning lanes on Chinden Road and several other issues that are being determined right
now by lTD. However, ITD has not established policy for this section of road at this time
and staff has asked -- or had asked the applicant to work with ITD to determine that the
original proposal had 70 feet of right of way on the entire lane where it -- the intersection
-- it was almost apparent that they were going to need more right of way. At least due
to the drawings that we have seen from lTD. The applicant did submit the revised
drawing to show a 50 foot wide -- what is essentially landscape buffer to -- for future
right of way access and the other portion there would make it a 70 foot -- so, it's 90 feet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 13 of 37
within 500 feet of the intersection and 70 feet to the east of the site. This is consistent
with the Silverleaf development and the Lochsa Falls development further to the east on
-- currently within the City of Meridian's jurisdiction. To the west we don't have any
subdivisions that have been developed and staff is hoping that ITD establishing their
policy and their funding for purchasing the required right of way that they foresee west
of Ten Mile Road before we see more subdivisions. Again, with this -- this is a PD for
reduced lot sizes, reduced frontages, and side yard setbacks for the R-8 product until all
the attached products in Blocks 3 and 6, as well as the reloaded reduction. With this,
the applicant is providing the additional landscaping, the additional open space, a
clubhouse and a pool in the MEW development of Block 6. These wi/I all be attached --
there will be a nice easy walking path that will be provided to all of these amenities
through this site. The landscaping plan does show a portion of the landscape lot there.
I guess Barb tried to put that in twice. Getting back to ITD, this is the road section that
ITD had submitted. Staff is not going with the recommendation for hundred foot of right
of way, as ITD has recommended. They did not make it a condition of approval. It is a
recommendation for this section, due to the fact that this is reduced. The section of
road pavement will not change. They will get their full roadway that they are desiring.
One issue of point is that they have listed here 35 feet for a recovery, six to one slope
for drainage and such. In talking with Steve Siddoway, before the transportation
coordinator prior to this meeting, this -- they still can maintain their drainage. They
should have -- there is other options that they can use to get this road section in a
reduced width, which has been determined in the past when they established the 70
foot of actual needed right of way for the travelways. With this, this does show two left
turn lanes on Chinden to Ten Mile Road. This one does say State Highway 44, but it is
the same section. With that, the applicant is proposing to do the berm, to make sure
that the highest point of the fence will be ten feet higher than the paved surface of the
roadway. So, half of the berm will be in the lots along Chinden Road -- or Chinden
Boulevard, as well as it will be landscaped in there. The 35-foot landscape buffer will be
there. However, the ten foot asphalt pathway will be placed in that 35-foot landscape
buffer, in lieu of the required Meridian city code five foot concrete sidewalk that is
typically along these sections. Staff gave the applicant option on that, due to the fact
that the UDC does call up to the ten-foot multi-use pathway along Chinden and the
applicant will be working with ITD in order to put the ten foot pathway in, as well as
provide for a license agreement from maintenance of that pathway to lTD. Again, the
products that the applicant is proposing are -- this is the attached housing. Planned
development portions are submitted. These are larger, less blocky houses that seem to
be going well with the City Council at this time. And with that I will stand for questions.
Staff is recommending approval of this with the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: The only thing I'm -- are those the only two elevations that we have to look at at
all? I mean --
Newton-Huckabay: Isn't there a whole bunch in our --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 14 of 37
Borup: Yeah. It just repeats the same thing.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, is it a repeat? My highly trained eye.
Guenther: Commissioner Moe, I did ask the -- I did talk to Mr. Nickel, the applicant's
representative, today to bring additional or better copies what of the elevations looked
like in possible color, so I hope that Mr. Nickel brought them. Looks like they did.
Zaremba: In that case, shall we proceed with the applicant's presentation? We are
ready for the applicant, please.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar.
Address is 36 East Pine here in Meridian, and I am here tonight on behalf of Irvine
Subdivision and we have -- there has been a lot of thought that's gone into this project.
It's been scrutinized I think from every angle, so we are pretty excited to be here and I
think we have come up with a project that's been referred to as designed by committee.
Everybody looked at it and we have tried to come up with something that will work for all
parties involved. City. lTD. Ada County Highway District. And, of course, ourselves.
The project does have 200 building units. It has 38.5 acres. On the current
Comprehensive Plan I think it is designated as low density, but if we look at the north
Meridian updated Comprehensive Plan it is slated for medium density residential, which
is between three to eight units to the acre. This clearly falls within that just over five
units to the acre. With this -- with this property and at this intersection we thought it was
a good -- we have got two main arterials with 20-26 and Ten Mile -- or Chinden and Ten
Mile being a future connection to the highway. We feel that this is going to be an
excellent location for this type of product. I know that -- and we will get into the product
briefly in a moment, but Mr. Guenther referred to them as four-plexes and six-plexes,
they will really be sold as town homes. So, they will all be individual units, individually
owned by separate families, and not necessarily the four-plexes, with that I think comes
the connotation of rentals and some other things that may not be such a good thought
by some people, so --
Newton-Huckabay: So, that's four different owners?
Amar: Yes. Correct. It's set up with -- on the property -- each lot, even though there is
a zero lot line, there will be four separate lots within that. So, there can be four different
owners or five different owners or six different owners, depending on how many
buildings are together. The concept with this -- and I think we have 12 percent open
space and that is actual usable open space, not including the separated sidewalk. If we
start counting what total open space could be calculated, it's well over the 12 percent,
15, 16, 17 percent of open space. The interior area of the subdivision -- this area -- will
all have separated sidewalks. We tried to make it more of the -- a traditional
neighborhood as we'd see downtown or downtown Boise. Tree lined streets. We will
be emphasizing on the -- on the alley-loaded lots, the detached lots, porches and
different architectural features to make it -- to make it feel -- I think my wife referred to it
as homely. Not in the bad sense. And I said you can't call it homely. But, no, homely is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 15 of 37
good. Oh. Okay. So -- I didn't question her. She's my wife. So, this area will be -- will
be more of the traditional neighborhood and, then, on the perimeter and the exterior
there, detached single-family units as we see a lot of in Meridian. We have met with the
neighbors and there are two on this particular project. Mr. Stevenson lives in this
location and -- if I speak for him and I say something wrong, he can correct it. And,
then, Mr. Meyers lives in this location. We have met with them. We will be fencing the
entire perimeter with a six-foot vinyl fence and that will include these boundaries, as well
as the entire -- well, it would be all the boundaries. But it will also be the entire eastern
boundary for Mr. Meyers and that was a special request that he made. There is one
main lateral that runs through this project. It will be tiled in accordance with Settler's
Irrigation District and in their easement. We understand that the sewer lift station is a
private lift station. It has been upsized to accommodate this project and we will be
working with that development in order to participate with that. The same for the
irrigation pump station. It's a private irrigation pump station and that has to do with the
delivery point for water. It's not on a Settler's ditch, it's, actually, on the Harold Lateral
Users Association. They don't want to maintain an irrigation pump station, so it will be
owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but still designed to Settler's
Irrigation District specs and, actually, reviewed by them, Settler's Irrigation District,
foresee sometime in the future that they may be taking those over, but have not gotten
to that yet. In the center of the project as you come in -- our main entrance is off of Ten
Mile. We are proposing no entrances off of Chinden. We have got a large park area.
That park area will have a tot lot, it will have a clubhouse, it will have a pool, and we
have also provided parking for that in the center of the project. We have also pathways
throughout the project to accommodate pedestrian traffic to the center. The area that I
believe staff's referring to them as MEW lots, those are the attached housing --
Guenther: That is correct.
Amar: I don't know what MEW means, but --
Guenther: Anna came up with it.
Amar: Okay. These are the MEW lots or the attached housing, as well as these are.
Newton-Huckabay: It means middle.
Amar: Middle?
Newton-Huckabay: It's Greek.
Amar: Oh. Thank you. They all front on the common area. So, their front yard, in
effect, will be four acres, or something similar. This one will be a little less. But it is
becoming very popular. People are wanting to maintain their yards less. However, they
still want a big yard. And so with this concept they can have a small yard in the front of
their -- in the front of their house, but still have the alley and they will have a garage in
the rear of their house, so all of these will have garages attached, minimum of a two car
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 16of37
garage, but, then, the majority of the open space will be shared by all and can be
enjoyed. Instead of a small yard, they can have a really -- a four acre yard that they can
all use. All of the lots, as I stated, the alley lots, the MEW lots, the attached housing,
and the detached, will all have a minimum of a two car garage. The extra parking is for
neighbors or incidental visitors -- not neighbors. Visitors or other people that would
come to visit. And we have tried to locate those in a central location that can be used
by all people and, obviously, we have on-street parking also for the visitors. We
appreciate staff's work on this. We know it's been difficult, especially with lTD. We
worked hard with ITD and we worked hard with staff to come up with this section. We
have looked at the right of way. This plat -- although it's a colored plat, doesn't show it.
It now jogs down. But there is 90 feet of right of way for 500 feet and, then, it goes back
to 70 feet of right of way, which is consistent with the balance of 20-26 back to -- I don't
know. Back to Boise somewhere. And, actually, Bainbridge, which is on the West of
this, was also approved and it has 70 feet of right of way also. So, we have tried to
work with ITD to accommodate their future growth plans and have done that with our
redesign plat. With that, I would stand for any further questions. I did give these same
elevations that we saw -- I guess that's a colored one. I don't know if it helps. You can
see the sky is blue.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes, sir. I think I'm a little lost here, but can you, basically, show me on your map
there basically where that -- that design is going to fit?
Amar: That design would fit on these --
Moe: Okay.
Amar: I think that design, actually, has four lots, but -- there is five. It would fit in this
block here and there would be another unit here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Moe: Okay. All right.
Amar: So, there is 47 -- and I believe it's the right number -- attached townhomes.
Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: I think it's those, which face the common area and, therefore, bring up the
issue of the alley needing to be a private street and, therefore, have a name and
address and stuff like that.
Amar: And one of the requirements was that we met with Joe Silva prior to this
meeting. We did do that. His concern was addressing and naming of the -- instead of
calling them alleys, they will, actually, be private streets and they will be named and be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 17 of 37
24 feet wide. We resolved those issues with him and are meeting all his requirements,
so --
Zaremba: So, you're agreeable with all of that?
Amar: We are agreeable with all of that.
Zaremba: Then, my question -- I guess not only for your project, but for all private
streets; how are they maintained? Does that become a common lot for the
homeowners association?
Amar: Correct. And it will be maintained by the entire homeowners association --
Zaremba: So, that will be reflected on the plat, that it's a separate lot?
Amar: Yes, it will be.
Zaremba: Okay. That was my question.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question, but it will wait until after --
Zaremba: Any other questions for Mr. Amar or shall we move onto public testimony?
Moe: Not yet.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Zaremba: This is the opportunity for the public to provide input and make comment and
I would ask, first, if there is anybody that's a spokesman for a group. Not seeing that,
sir, if you would come ahead. And I forgot to mention that when you do testify, please,
begin with your name and address, everybody. Thank you.
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson at 6040 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak. Some of the issues I have -- I am in the -- this lower left section of
this development here. So, there is several -- you know, I'm really up to date with the
latest information, but from what I have been trying to find out here, basically, I'm from --
many years here in this area. Meridian. Grew up here. And for me to have R-8 as low
density, for one thing, is a new definition for me. To me that was always high density.
And my previous -- the project just south of this used to be property of mine and, then, I
sold that with the expectations or with the discussions that they not have any sewer
access to that development at that particular point, that all of that would be coming from
the Black Cat Trunk and that was consistent with what the Public Works I think original
plans were for that particular area. So, basically, I felt like I was pretty well still
protected in my area right there of having the nice view that I have of Shaffer Butte and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 18 of 37
Squaw Butte and everything in there as well. So, that's kind of where my concern is
and especially after just for tonight seeing the picture of that, that looks like a three story
building to me and I can already see in the horizon with the existing growth it's even a
half mile or farther away, that the mountain lines are starting to disappear. Now, my
concern is my personal quality of life in that area right there, with especially an R-8 and
the condensed houses in there, really leaves me with no visibility to the mountains that I
have enjoyed all this time. Furthermore, on that same issue, with the -- with the
services, such as sewer, water, and all those things, they are coming from the back side
of this and everything completely bypasses my property right there, so I think in the
planning of this whole process right here, I'm concerned about my property basically
being discriminated against for services in the future. Should I ever be required to hook
up to the city services, it's going to have to cross over the street, wait for all the
development to come in from Black Cat Trunk, which it was originally designed. So,
that's one of my concerns right there. The other concern I have, too -- with that is
access to high speed broadband, which is, you know, important for my line of work,
which the only access I have is through the antenna to antenna, which is wireless and
my concern is, too, that these houses are going to block that antenna -- that line of sight
from the antenna, so I will not be -- so I will be prohibitive from high speed internet. I do
work out of my house. I am required to do presentations from my house and so I am
concerned with that right there as well. Some other considerations I have is my boys
raise sheep and -- excuse me, but, basically -- I'll try to wrap this up real quick. We
have some high prized sheep that we sell to and with all these houses and that fact that
they are going beyond what the minimum requirements actually were for the frontages
and everything, now I have more neighbors that I will have to protect against -- protect
the sheep right there and I'm concerned about some of those issues with farm versus
city as well. So, I guess I'm out of time, but there are a few other things I do have to
say.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Stevenson, you said you did sell the property to the south for a
subdivision development?
Stevenson: Correct. Yes. It was my understanding at that time was that R-4 was the
maximum out there a person, you know, could put in there. And also with
understanding, too, was that --
Borup: Is that what that subdivision did was R-4?
Stevenson: Yes. Basically, it was sold -- or how I -- how it came about was -- basically,
was that this -- that the sewer line came up there was, basically, about maxed out
anyway and they were going to go, you know, beyond what was originally planned,
because -- and they had to get special approval to get it to tie into the existing trunk that
it's in right now, rather than waiting for the Black Cat Trunk to come in. And so the way
it was explained to me was we -- they overdesigned those and that there was barely
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 19 of 37
enough capacity right there and, of course, obviously, things have changed since then,
so --
Borup: Well, if they over-designed, then, there would be capacity, so --
Stevenson: Well, that's what he was saying. He was saying there was more going --
they were trying to get some special things out with the Public Works, but the
understanding I had was that a project of that magnitude would not happen in that area.
So, I felt like that was probably at least three to five years out before this stuff would be
taking place.
Borup: I was just trying to understand. It seems like -- you sold your property for
development, but you were hoping your neighbor wouldn't be able to do the same
thing?
Stevenson: Well, yeah, I mean all -- well, the other thing is, too, is my line of sight from
that particular side is -- really, there is nothing there but other houses.
Borup: Right.
Stevenson: And so, I said, okay, I can protect that --
Borup: How about your -- how about the other neighbors across the street with this --
you know, with the development on your property? Their line of sight was affected, too.
Stevenson: There is a golf course that's over there and so it's pretty well -- I mean there
is a big enough distance there, so that has no impact at all whatsoever on any of the
other neighbors.
Borup: Okay. I did notice they did put the larger lots around your property.
Stevenson: Yeah. But I think if you take a look, they are trying to -- I don't know all the
specs on what the frontage is, but I think they are trying to even shorten down what the
normal specs are for frontages on these properties and I have to assume this, my
concern is, too, you know, this has always been the country and now you're trying to
make, you know, this like a city center with a magnitude of houses and the traffic
conditions out there in that area, too, you're just compounding the traffic before the
streets are there. Chinden Boulevard, you know, can be a nightmare to get out and
especially if you need to turn west towards Caldwell, is very challenging at times in the
day and --
Borup: Be nice to have a light there you're saying?
Stevenson: Yeah, it would. And like I -- the traffic is -- we are building all the
subdivisions and the subdivisions are going to be built long before the roads are there to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 20 of 37
reach that capacity. So, there will be a time period that there will be some impact that
my concern is --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask the Public Works representative, Mike, for a
clarification. The connection through Ten Mile that they are proposing is a temporary
solution; is that correct? They will eventually be required to drop that and connect to the
North Black Cat?
Cole: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: Is that correct?
Cole: That's correct. This was originally master planned to fall into the North Black Cat
lift station, which is under design, would be done in about two years.
Zaremba: Okay.
Cole: They are put in a temporary lift station with their Silverleaf development of
sufficient size to serve the 200 lots in this development. The lift station was preplanned
to take in this -- this lift station.
Zaremba: Okay.
Cole: The lift station was preplanned to take in this development.
Zaremba: But even so, eventually, they will disconnect from that and connect to the
Black Cat?
Cole: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. The Public Hearing is still open. Anybody else
care to add testimony on this subject? In that case, we will go back to Mr. Amar.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did take notes. I paid attention. The question with
Mr. Stevenson -- we have -- I'll try to address a couple of his questions. The low versus
medium density, this is, actually, a medium density project. It falls between that three to
eight units to the acre. It's just over five units to the acre. So, this is medium density.
The sewer access -- I think he was talking about sewer access to actually his property.
On this map here where he lives, the sewer lift station currently is on this property -- on
this lot, which, actually, was his property before, directly to the south. So, he has very
good access to it. Also, this sewer -- it has already been designed to there, if you will,
and when the Black Cat line is extended it will be a very easy connection for the sewer
to connect to that Black Cat and the lift station be abandoned. So, that's already been
planned for. Prior to us acquiring this property we were required by Public Works to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 21 of 37
make sure that the lift station at Silverleaf was of sufficient size and capacity to service
this property. So, that was contemplated prior to us acquiring -- acquiring this property.
This is the -- I guess temporary solution until the Black Cat line gets there. Now, with
respect to his sheep, we understand this is an agricultural area, still we are in Meridian,
and we have on the face of the plat the Right To Farm Act clearly stated. We are also
fencing his borders to keep that separation for his -- for his -- so he can maintain his
lifestyle that he enjoys now. On the visibility and the internet access, I know this only
because I have the same -- I don't know if it's the exact same access, but I have got
antenna to antenna internet because at my locatîon I did not have -- I do now, because
there is a subdivision around me, but at the time I did not have access to the internet or
high speed without the antenna and we have got houses all around us and we still are
able to have our antenna to antenna internet. So, I don't know what style he has or
what company, but it hasn't caused a problem at our house and we now surrounded by
-- by homes. So, I think with that, we understand with growth comes change. When we
talk about traffic, with this project and the other developments, the right of way that
would be needed for the road improvements is actually -- it's being set aside currently
with these projects. So, it helps all the jurisdictions to acquire the right of way and plan
with the growth. I know we would like the roads. I live in north Meridian now, I'd love
the roads to be completely up to speed currently. They are not. With growth comes
time of improvements and we understand that, so we hope in our cooperation and
coordination with ITD, Ada County Highway District, and the City of Meridian, that we
are looking at that and trying to accommodate the future growth and at least a spot for
that -- for those upgrades to take place. We did put the lots bordering his property,
which currently meet your standards in Meridian for the R-8 standards. So, if we were
to come in a month later we would not be asking for any reduced setbacks on the lots
that are bordering his property, they all meet current standards, although they did not
meet the standards at the time. We submitted about a month before your new
ordinance took effect. So, with that I will stand for any further questions.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Based on that discussion about those lots that border his house, what -- what's
the plan for those homes? Are they going to be single or double story -- two story
houses?
Amar: Well, the consumer will decide, I suspect, what they will be.
contemplated single or double story. They have the ability to be either.
We hadn't
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 22 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: I only have one question, comment, on the -- I need to get my own
pointer. Right here, this isn't -- this is still agricultural property; correct?
Amar: Yes, ma'am. That is Mr. Meyers' property.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Meyers' property? My only concern is where you have this long
shot here, you're going to have to -- if he chooses to develop, I don't think he has a lot
of options as far as the length of the block and I bet Mr. Nickel is anxious to have a
chicane conversation with me again. But I was wondering maybe if the access could be
-- I mean I'd like to know what the other Commissioners think, but when I opened up this
plat last night, that was the first thing that struck me is that that's awfully long and the
choices going right into this property, if it develops, become limited.
Amar: Joe, you haven't -- do you have the -- an overall site plan that shows the area
map? So, on this project the road currently as proposed comes out about this location
and on Silverleaf that location is in about this location. So, our thought -- and we talked
to Mike Meyers about this and I guess we came up with what we have here tonight. But
our thought was -- because I know Meridian did not like cul-de-sacs, you can take this
road and bring it down and, then, connect, you're still going to end up with a cul-de-sac
type feature in here. But we were trying to minimize cul-de-sacs while still allowing
interconnectivities from the projects. We did look at relocating it and putting the road at
this location across from the current location in Silverleaf, but what that would do is
create a cul-de-sac at this location and, then, another one here. So, I guess if you'd like
us to redesign it or move that road we can, but that was how we got to where we are
today. We were trying to minimize -- keep the interconnectivity, yet minimize the cul-de-
sacs and -- I don't know if Mr. Meyers or us had a crystal ball into the future, but that's
what we came up with. I hope that answered your question.
Borup: I assume part of your question, Commissioner, was how much further it could
go to the east, how much longer that straightaway would be. So, it looks like it's what --
Newton-Huckabay: But that's --
Borup: -- a 150 feet or so?
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't remember when I looked at the map and that's my mistake.
I was -- that this property was as narrow as it is. I was thinking it was this one right
here.
Borup: I couldn't remember either.
Newton-Huckabay: And this is Silverleaf, so --
Amar: Yes, ma'am.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 23 of 37
Amar: There is a road in Silverleaf along the same location, but it turns and, then,
comes back down the property line. So, that was our thought that the road would come
in and jog down and reconnect to Silverleaf. So, it can probably really -- another 200
feet of distance before the road's going to turn.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and the existing depiction on your road that goes across the north
from east to west is not an exact straightaway either. You appear to have put one of the
calming devices in, which is a little variation in direction.
Amar: Is that what Mr. Oyen -- Oyen?
Zaremba: Oyen. Yes.
Amar: -- called it, but it was invisible calming devices --
Zaremba: Yes. Or a chicane.
Amar: I learned what a chicane was tonight.
Zaremba: I think that helps.
Newton-Huckabay: And I saw Mr. Nickel squirm in the back of the room earlier with the
conversation.
Amar: I'll note that Meridian doesn't like chicanes.
Newton-Huckabay: No. We did like -- it was the traffic pincher.
Zaremba: To me they are the preferred option.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm satisfied with that. I was thinking of the property to the
east and that was my mistake, was, actually, the larger piece.
Borup: Well, we didn't have anything that really told us.
Zaremba: Staff, anything to add or ask Mr. Amar?
Guenther: Just one thing. It's a good thing Mr. Siddoway is here, because he pointed
out a good fact that the applicant will need to grant a pedestrian easement for the
pathway within the landscape lot along Chinden, which Mr. Amar is amenable to.
ACHD calls it out in their standard conditions of approval for any pathway along theirs,
but ITD does not and since we actually don't have conditions of approval from ITD, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 24 of 37
the way ACHD normally drafts them, we would just add that as site-specific condition
1.13.
Amar: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay. That's agreeable.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Amar: That is agreeable.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just had one other question. Have you guys built any of these
four-plexes anywhere in town?
Amar: Not yet.
Newton-Huckabay: Or town-homes.
Amar: We have not. In fact, I have driven the town trying to find them and I seen signs
that say town-homes, but they are too wide and the garage is still up front. So, this is a
new concept that I haven't found yet. I'm sure somewhere in the Treasure Valley
someone has built them, I just -- I haven't found it.
Borup: I don't think so.
Zaremba: Well, there is plenty of them in the mid-west and New England. I have seen
them. This is not an unusual concept and they are very popular.
Amar: There is a project in Eagle that -- they are not town-homes, but they have the
houses fronting on the common area and the one block just was finished and Mr. Nickel
thought I had the pictures and I thought he had the pictures, so, consequently, no one
has the pictures. But it does look really nice and it makes a nice -- a friendly
neighborhood, I guess.
Borup: There is some projects in Oregon like that.
Amar: I will probably get on a plane this winter and go find some, because I really
would like to see them.
Zaremba: Bring pictures.
Amar: As far as the construction, there is questions in my mind as what needs to be
done with the improvements and we can figure that out. But there is always questions
with every project, but I'll probably go search some out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 25 of 37
Zaremba: Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioners, discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: My only comment would be that I really like the look of this project
and I like the diversity in this project. We don't have enough of this I don't think.
Zaremba: It appears to me to be an answer to the things we have asked for.
Newton-Huckabay: And I think given the -- a lot of the commercial development we are
going to see coming on Chinden over the next few years, this will be a really good
compliment to that, so I --
Borup: It -- excuse me.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm done.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. This is fairly dense and I would have some hesitation, other
than the location. I mean it's on -- on Highway 44 and Ten Mile, which will have freeway
access, so -- I mean it's going to be a busy intersection and is probably appropriate
design for that location. If it was in the middle of a mile or something, then, different
occasion, I'd probably feel different. Seems to make sense for there.
Zaremba: Considering Chinden to be a major transportation corridor and some day if
we ever have public transportation, it probably would have --
Newton-Huckabay: When.
Zaremba: When it's funded. That's the issue for everything. But it would very likely be
a major transit route. It just occurs to me at the moment might it not be a bad idea to
have somewhere a pedestrian access out to that sidewalk, without having to walk all the
way around to -- maybe Mr. Amar would comment on whether that's a possibility or
whether that means poking a hole in the fence that would eliminate security or --
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, that's also that large berm that's going to be along that
property line.
Zaremba: That's true. Maybe it's not practical.
Amar: Well, the pedestrian access was in one design and, then, out of the next one,
and, then, in another one and, then, back out of it and it ended up being out largely for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 26 of 37
the reason. We did think it was a good idea to get access out there, but we didn't know
how to build the -- the berm and the fence is not only for esthetics, but to reduce the
noise and --
Zaremba: And once you poke a hole in it, you lose the sound deadening.
Amar: You lose that sound deadening, so --
Zaremba: I withdraw my comment. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to close
the Public Hearing?
Moe: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-
039.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: My only question -- I have a question of staff in regards to site specific that we
discussed just before.
Zaremba: There was one sentence that you wanted to --
Moe: I'm having a heck of a time trying to find site specifics in this report.
Guenther: The new report format, yeah.
Zaremba: Exhibit B, I think.
Guenther: It's Exhibit B --
Moe: Hang on. Where would that be?
Guenther: Which would come right after your --
Moe: I have got -- okay. What page on Exhibit B?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 27 of 37
Guenther: It would be page two. It starts with site-specific requirements for the
preliminary plat from the planning department. And on page two of Exhibit B, it would
be 1.1.13.
Moe: Okay. 1.1.13. No. Wait. Let's start that over. One more time.
Guenther: The applicant shall grant --
Moe: No. No. No. Give me the number one more time.
Guenther: Oh. I'm sorry. 1.1.13.
Moe: One three. It was that. Okay. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Three ones and one three.
Moe: Got it. And, then, you want it to say what?
Guenther: That the applicant shall grant a pedestrian easement --
Moe: Hold on. Grant an --
Guenther: Grant a pedestrian easement.
Moe: Okay.
Guenther: For the pathway.
Moe: For the --
Guenther: Within the landscape lot.
Moe: Landscape.
Guenther: Within the landscape lot along Chinden.
Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Okay. I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038,
PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
October 20th, 2005, and preliminary plat dated July 5th, 2005, received September
30th, 2005, and the site plan dated July 5th, 2005, with the following modifications to the
preliminary plat. On Exhibit B, page two, please, add an additional item 1.1.13 to read:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 28 of 37
Applicant shall grant a pedestrian easement for the pathway within the landscape lot on
Chinden Boulevard. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, could we take a --
Zaremba: Let's do one thing and, then, we will take a break.
Moe: All right. Oh. Okay. I know what you want to do. Okay.
Item 8:
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
142.19 acres for RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs
Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west
of North Black Cat Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 510
building lots and 25 other lots on 102.2 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N
zones for Durango Springs South Subdivision by Providence
Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 151
building lots and 14 other lots on 39.87 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N
zones for Durango Springs North Subdivision by Providence
Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 631 single-family detached and attached
residential dwelling units and approximately 149,084 square feet of
office/commercial buildings, with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage
and setbacks in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs
Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west
of North Black Cat Road:
Zaremba: I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-044, PP 05-047, and PP 05-046, and
CUP 05-045, all relating to Durango Springs Subdivision and entertain a motion to
continue all four hearings to our regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2005.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 29 of 37
Mae: I move that we move the public hearings on --
Borup: Why not just say so moved.
Moe: Pardon me?
Zaremba: Just say so moved.
Borup: Why don't you just say so moved of what he said.
Moe: Oh. So moved.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: We will take about a ten-minute break and, then, we will reconvene on the
last item.
(Recess.)
Item 12:
Item 13:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by
M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05~048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255
building lots and 25 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275
South Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with
reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the
applicant is requesting a waiver for the standard block length in a
proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H
Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene and let the record show that
all the Commissioners that were here before the break are again present and I will open
the public hearings for AZ 05-042, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046, all of which relate to
Reflection Ridge Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 30 of 37
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Reflection Ridge
Subdivision includes just over 91 acres, request to R-4, which is a low-density
residential zoning district. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road.
It's approximately a quarter mile north of Amity. There are currently three single-family
homes on this site and some other outbuildings. The property is designated -- there are
two different designations on the development property on the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map. Going from Locust Grove Road, this approximately 50 acres is
designated for low density residential. This triangle area up here, as well as this other
piece of property over here, are both called out for medium density residential? It's
about 40 acres medium density, so there are those two designations on the property.
To the north is recently approved Sicily Subdivision, just this year, so that you don't --
you don't even see any preliminary plat -- for final platted lots like you see in Roseleaf or
Chatsworth Subdivision, that are also in this section. There have been no city
subdivisions south of this, so this would be the first south in this section. The city limits
would go, if approved -- it is still rural in nature. There is a rural subdivision to the south
of the subject site as well. Here is a picture of the preliminary plat and I apologize, it is
a pretty large subdivision, very wide, and the lots don't come across very clearly. I do
have a breakdown with the landscape plan. We will go through that and touch on a
couple different things within different sections. Just to give you some more of the
numbers, there are 255 single-family building lots proposed. They are requesting to
reduce the lot sizes, particularly for some of the lots that are alley loaded and there are
some other smaller lots kind of internal to the subdivision here. They also do not have -
- some of the lots don't have the minimum street frontage requirement of the R-4 zone.
They have requested a reduced front building setback for those alley-loaded lots, as
well they'd like to go down to ten feet in the front for those alley-loaded lots. And there
are a few blocks that exceed our maximum block length. Here is a copy of the
landscape plan. There is 17.7 -- or 17 percent open space proposed within the
development. Some of the other amenities include a basketball court, volleyball court,
there is tot lots shown in a couple of the different common areas. A swimming pool in
this general location here. Clubhouse. And, then, they are doing the detached
sidewalks, the boulevard style entryway, with a -- there is a roundabout here into the
development. I think I'm just going to touch on a couple of changes to the submitted
site plan that staff has. I will briefly give you the recommendation right now that staff is
requesting that you hold off on any recommendation to the City Council at this time, in
order to give ACHD a chance to send those comments. We have not received official
approval or action from the highway district yet on this project. I did speak with their
staff last week and they said about two weeks they should have a staff report -- have
completed their traffic impact study and, then, be able to do a staff report and get it up
to their commission for action. So, that -- I think it was November 17th, I believe, is the
date that we think we can probably get it on for that hearing. A couple of the things that
we would also like the applicant to work on in the meantime, some questions that we
had -- and maybe this is where I'll go to some more of the blow ups of the area. This is
the entrance street. We did have a request for a stub street in approximately this
location. We have a five acre parcel south that has not been platted previously that's
adjacent to that residential subdivision that I pointed out earlier -- a county subdivision
that I pointed out earlier with approximately one acre lots here and for future
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 31 of 37
development purposes and interconnectivity purposes, staff would like to see a little
stub street here. It wouldn't be very much of a stub street. Maybe 20 or 30 feet in
length. But it would get them started in access, really, to this main entrance roadway.
Some of the amenities here. And on the back sides of some of the alley-loaded lots --
some of the last projects staff is requesting that these alleys be 24-foot wide private
streets for the reasons you discussed earlier, primarily for addressing purposes and
also gets them a little wider for the garbage trucks and fire trucks should they need to
use them. Or moving a little further to the west here, I don't know that there is much to
talk about here. They are stubbing a street down to -- I think it's 17 or 20 acres -- go
back real quick to the -- to the overall -- that stub street we were just looking at is in
approximately this location here. This is currently being filled back in. There is a pretty
significant grade. It's a bowl right now. The parks department is interested in possibly
reclaiming this area for a park in this section. A little bit different than the standard
parks you normally see. There are some challenges with that site, however. There is a
lack of visibility and just due to the steep slope surrounding, there is going to be limited
access into it, if it does become a park. So, the parks department is kind of trying to
think through some of those constraints and make that work as a park, but I think that
will happen, but just to kind of point that out. There is a stub street shown down here
and probably another access point will come via the existing lane. It will be improved as
a public street, but to that park, eventually, in the future, hopefully. I will briefly just --
there is a -- I think it's the Farr Lateral, that's here. They are going to be tiling that.
There is a common lot on the southwest corner. Here, getting a little farther to the
north. Some of these there isn't much to talk about, but right now there is an existing
private lane, as I mentioned, that goes out to Meridian Road and it does service three or
four homes -- a couple of the homes, anyways, that are currently on this site, as well as
there is another home or two just to the north that all use this private lane out to
Meridian Road. This is one of the reasons staff would like to get some comments from
ACHD for the Commission to look at whatever requirements the Ada County Highway
District is going to have, regarding the improvement of possibly a portion of this
roadway for public use. The applicant's proposing a 20-foot wide emergency access
easement in the interim until a public street can be constructed at the half mile location.
That's where this is is at the half mile. So, it makes pretty good sense to have a
collector road come in at that location. I will touch -- this is the very northern point of
this subdivision. The Ridenbaugh Canal does traverse the north property line all the
way out to Locust Grove Road along the north property line and in the staff report it is
called out that the police department met with us three weeks ago or thereabouts and
did have some concerns with this common lot at the end of this cul-de-sac and not
being able to see -- they are worried about it being hidden, especially if this property
owner constructs a fence, there is this kind of no man's land back there. The comments
from the police department were they would like to see this whole cul-de-sac area
basically opened up and make it kind of a park -- that end a cul-de-sac park. I spoke
with the applicant just before this hearing, he's got another rendering that maybe he'd
like to propose about making it be a -- adding a build-able lot, rather than just adding the
common lot. Going the other way, basically. Staff doesn't have a problem with that, if
you can solve the problem, the safety issue that was there before. We would like -- we
like the amount of open space they are providing and there is a pathway here, so as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 32 of 37
long as you can still get to the multi-use pathway, I don't think staff would have, really,
any concerns with that. I did scan in an overall of the picture, just to kind of show how
all those pieces fall together. I think that's pretty much -- except for the Ridenbaugh, I
did want to -- one more thing real quick, I guess, with that. The legal description
submitted with the application does show the project boundary line along the north side
of the Ridenbaugh for this top triangular piece and, then, in approximately this location it
cuts back and goes along the south boundary and in the next couple few weeks we'd
like to have a different answer from the applicant, the applicant's surveyor, or some
answer on where the property line actually is or any easements that have come to this
property. It really is going to have an effect on where Nampa-Meridian is going to allow
the pathway to be constructed there and if we need to work with Nampa-Meridian on
putting -- if it is within their easement, working through our master pathway agreement
we have with them or maybe they even have to move it fully on their site and outside of
any easements. But that's kind of an unknown right now that we would also like to get
some more -- some more answers to here in the next couple weeks. That's all that I
had, save I have a few elevations. I did have a couple of elevations that I can breeze
through those while the applicant is coming forward, if you would like. I'll stand for any
questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Do we know in general throughout the area
who owns the Ridenbaugh Canal?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this section was a little bit odd for me,
the first time I had ever been on the Ada County assessor's website and looking at their
data and it did not show -- it did not pop up a property owner when you clicked on this
parcel. It looked like there is a parcel approximately 40 to 50 feet wide, but it did not
show who owned that. So, most of the time it's just going to be an easement, so you're
going to have private property with a 40 or 50-foot easement on either side from center
line of that lateral. In this case it did look like there was someone that owned that
property, but, again, we couldn't find it. There are other instances -- north Meridian
there is several instances where Settler's does own their facility outright, they own it in
fee simple. Most of the time -- I would say 70 percent of the time they are just going to
be easements across people's property, but this one was a little bit of a mystery and
that's why we would like to get that cleared up here before we get too far along in the
process, so --
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. And would the applicant care to come forward, please.
Koga: My name is David Koga with the Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive. First of
all, I'm just going to kind of follow up with some of Craig's comments that he had on the
project. First of all, before I get into any comments, I want to just mention that we did
have a neighborhood meeting after turning the application in. At that time it's not
required, but we thought it was very important, particularly with some of the neighbors to
the south over there. Craig, could you put that color one in? Particularly right here.
There you go. Thanks, Craig. Because of these neighbors right here we are trying to
be sensitive and don't have a lot of lots right next to it. So, we did have a neighborhood
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 33 of 37
meeting. We had two gentlemen at this subdivision and one gentleman across the
street came to our meeting on site and we had a good meeting and they were very --
basically thanked us for thinking -- or thinking of that area and to have some type of
buffer into the development in there. So, that turned out very well. More specifically on
some of the comments that Craig had mentioned, regard to the Ridenbaugh Canal, it is
true it was kind of unique. If you go and look at the -- the specific information, right
along the Ridenbaugh Canal to right here it specifically states that it's coming from the
center n-- that this ownership is south of the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal, but when
you get to right here it just says south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. So, we are saying
does that mean south of the center, south from the bank, south from the easement. So,
our surveyor put a lot of time and effort to do a search to find out more information and
they went back to 1900 something and could not find out the specific to state exactly
what they mean by that. Since then we have had a meeting with John Anderson with
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and he agreed that it is -- it's an unknown source and so they
are going to do their own personal search right now to find out exactly who owns that
area. The way it appears is that Nampa-Meridian does own that and if that's the case,
then, they really don't care for that, they would rather just deed that to the developers,
just they always have their easement, their main easement in there. So, that's where
we are right now and as of right now Nampa-Meridian is still doing their personal search
on that. So, in our next meeting we will have more information on that.
Zaremba: If it did turn out that way, then, you would include it in the area that's being
annexed?
Koga: Yes. Correct. And we'd have to change the survey in there so it looks like the --
Zaremba: I think that's the effect that it has on the city is this little strip here --
Koga: Exactly.
Zaremba: -- you know, prevents somebody else from annexing, maybe.
Koga: Yeah. Having a little spike in there wouldn't work very well. So, yeah, that's
what we all want to obtain. Just want to make sure that nobody else owns that also and
I think that's the key thing. Regard to -- Rumple Road is a private road right now. The
owners to the north, Cavin, is going through the process right now to be developed
through some other developers and we are working -- as a matter of fact, we are going
to have another meeting with them next week to have a final decision on the Rumple
Road itself. I met with ACHD earlier this week and they -- their biggest concern is that
eventually they would like it changed from a private to public, number one. And,
number two, that our ownership is more centered with the Rumple Road. So, once
again, at our next meeting we should have more information about that. Regard to
ACHD, we are waiting for their report, but I met with ACHD -- it was either Monday or
Tuesday of this week. Some of the key things that -- I can kind of highlight what they
are looking at. At our entrance right here they want to make sure that our entrance is
directly aligned with the proposed development to the east. Right now we are about 16
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 34 of 37
-- well, no, we are about 12 or 13 feet off. So, we just need to move our entrance a little
bit to the south. As Craig mentioned, we will have a stub out to the south on these five-
acre lots to the south here. We talked a little bit earlier about Rumple. And this area
right here where there is plans for a future bridge, they are going to require the
developers to pay for half of that bridge. And the other issue has to do with the length
about the blocks in here and it's just kind of unique that you had a presentation tonight
from ACHD. We did -- when we met with ACHD, they -- what we would realize to do is
that at each one of these intersections is -- it should have bulb outs on that area and
they really -- they agreed and they liked that idea and so in our next presentation we will
have those changes made also to show you that.
Zaremba: It also appears that some of those are not exactly a straightaway either. Is
that really a slight curve along there?
Koga: Uh-huh. Oh, yeah.
Zaremba: And the same thing here, it's not an exact straightaway?
Koga: I mean -- yeah. Yeah. On this area right here where we have the one open
space, we were just kind of hard to -- the police to look at. What we would like to do is
do just the opposite. Instead of open -- or taking this lot out and have a larger open
space, we'd like to just turn this whole area into a larger lot. We would still have a small
open space right here as part of the cul-de-sac, so people do have access to the
regional pathway system, but we just think that would be a better option to that situation
there. And -- oh, in closing, there is a couple issues -- I don't want to go into the details
on this, but we have -- we have met with Public Works in regard to both sewer and
water. There are a couple of issues on that and we will directly work with them in
regard to the sewer and water on that. Other than that, do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? I guess not at this point.
Koga: Thank you.
Zaremba: We will go on to public testimony and signed up we have Paul Walsh. Okay.
He has nothing to add. Marked as being in favor. He was the only one that signed up,
but if anybody else would care to add any testimony, anything you feel we would miss?
Seeing no action, Mr. Koga, if you care to wrap up? There is nothing to rebut, but -- it's
all been said. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. As suggested by staff,
there are some things that need to be adjusted and I think it's the right thing to do to
continue this to our second meeting in November, get the ACHD report. ACHD will
have the ideas incorporated that have already been talked about.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I guess the question is does any Commissioner have anything that they feel
they would add as a condition that's not already there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 35 of 37
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: No. I'm fine with it the way it is. What's been discussed. The only question I
would have of the applicant would be as far as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, the situation
with the Ridenbaugh, are you going to be able to have that resolved and information will
be, then, by the 17th? Okay.
Zaremba: I see a head nod and a yes from the audience. All right. On the whole of it it
looks like an attractive project to me, so I see no reason to add any other -- the issues
that have been talked about I'm satisfied that they will be resolved.
Borup: A couple of the designs that they were talking about was the bulb outs, the curb
extensions, and the entrance. I'm assuming that the entrance moving was at Locust
Grove, not the whole length; isn't that correct?
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: With such an odd-shaped piece of property, an excellent job of coming up
with something. It appears to be pretty attractive. Oh, I -- my one other question was
on the -- the same thing on the alleyways that will be private streets, they will be in their
own common lot? Yes. Okay. The answer to that is yes. So, they are maintained by
the homeowners association.
Borup: Right. Was the testimony on Rumple Lane that the hope is that would
eventually be a public road and the access would be a public road access from here?
It's still not going to be --
Zaremba: Over to Meridian.
Borup: -- just an emergency access, it will eventually be a public? Maybe--
Zaremba: If you would care to comment on that, sir. Come on back.
Koga: One thing I should mention. We did meet with Joe Silva about in the case it is a
private road for emergency he didn't have any problem with that. Just so that -- that he
has the right to have that access to it through an easement in there.
Borup: You said ACHD would like to see it go public and, then, I assume that would be
a full right of way --
Koga: Well, not only them, but you look on the City of Meridian on your Comp Plan for
your streets in the future, that you'd like to have -- it states there as a collector also. So,
we are working with -- like I say, with the developers to the north, so we have a joint use
on that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 36 of 37
Borup: Well, the reason I brought it up is at this point you don't show a wide enough
right of way to there, do you?
Koga: What we are showing right now -- I know it's hard to see on this, but we are
showing a right of way for a half street.
Borup: Okay.
Koga: And I think that's why I say we will work with the developers to show you how
that road will be brought in there. It's wide enough that a half -- it's a right of way for
emergency access for 20 feet and, then, also if it is the case that it turns from private to
public, that it's wide enough for taking up half of that.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: And you're talking --
Borup: You've got 31 feet there. It looks like 31 feet.
Koga: I think so.
Zaremba: Your discussion with the fire department, they are satisfied that even before
it becomes a public road it's still usable as an emergency access, which means that
you're not limited to 50 housing units, because there is a second --
Koga: Because the radius and half mile radius he has. Right. We had talked to him
about that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Well, I think the issues are known and we are interested
in ACHD's response. Anybody care to continue?
Hood: Mr. Chair? I'm sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing.
Zaremba: Mr. Hood.
Hood: We did talk to the applicant before and I just think it made it into the site specific
conditions that I will be adding for next time, is to have them relinquish any interest they
may have in that private road, just so there is not difficulty getting that public collector
that we are looking for in the future. So, I'll make note here to add that as a condition,
that any interest they may have when they plat, it goes away for that private lane. They
can sure use it as a public street, but just so we don't have that -- a Wingate Lane or
some of the other lane problems that we get with someone trying to cross that. So,
sorry, I forgot -- I did not include that as a condition, but we will include that for the next
time, so -- thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. That makes sense to me. Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 20, 2005
Page 37 of 37
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP
05-046 as presented in the staff report, for the hearing date of October 20th, 2005, to
the November 17th, 2005, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and would direct the applicant to make all changes as discussed this
evening.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
-.lL1--1l1 05
DATE APPROVED
~liNL