2006 03-02
--:-;. .
jr;:'5j
Meridian PlanninQ and ZoninQ Meetina
March 2, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 2, 2006, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Wendy Newton-
Huckabay, and David Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Jessica Johnson, Craig (Caleb) Hood, Josh
Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 2nd to order and begin with
roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. Before we adopt the agenda, there are a couple of items that will be
continued tonight and will not be heard and they are -- I hope I get this right. Public
Hearing AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision. That will be
continued to April 6th. Are you -- Shawn, are you okay with that? Yes. Okay. And the
second one to be continued to the April 6th hearing date is Hightower Subdivision,
which would be PP 06-003 and CUP 06-004. So, anybody that would be here to either
provide testimony to those two applications or to listen to the applicant's presentation,
those two will be continued to a later hearing and those are the only two changes to the
agenda from my perspective. So, at this time I'd like to propose we adopt the agenda.
Zaremba: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All
opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 2 of 90
C.
B.
Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-057 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and
floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain
Wood Products by Intermountain Wood Products - 220 South
Adkins Way:
D.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-058 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in
an R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley
Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian Road:
E.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-001 Request
for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I-L district for Yanke
Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction - 724 West Taylor:
F.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-003 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop
at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel
by Dave Buich - 3055 Fairview Avenue:
G.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-059 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive - thru within 300 feet of a
residential district for Silverstone Towne Square by Rudeen &
Associates - 1660 South Jade Way:
H.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-061 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for a 12,680 square foot commercial
building housing a Denny's Restaurant and retail uses on 1.7
acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East Fairview Ave:
Rohm: The third item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does anyone have
something to speak to that?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of items that probably can be dealt with
without removing them from the Consent Agenda. Item A, the minutes of November 29,
2005, I did not receive those, but I understand others did bye-mail. The majority of us
got those? Did other people actually get the November 29th minutes?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I did. Not bye-mail. I was in the office and requested those.
Rohm: I think that we should remove it anyway, just because you have not had a
chance to review.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 3 of gO
Zaremba: Okay. Let's remove A and schedule that for a later meeting. Then, Item C,
Facts and Finding for Intermountain Wood Products, a very small item. On page two of
the Facts and Findings, paragraph C, paragraph two, paragraph A -- so, I'm looking at
C-2-A, and the second line it says: And has volunteered to provide additional site
obscuring slates and the E should be removed. That should be made the word slats.
And I only make a deal out of that, because there is such a thing as slates and we are
not asking them to build a wall out of slates, but to put slats in an existing fence. So, I
would take the E out of that word and make that change. Then on item H, the Findings
for the Denny's restaurant, also on page two, item C, item two, there is an A that
instructs them to widen the drive aisle behind the angled parking. On the property to
the west of this we required that they put up employee only signs on the spaces that this
is referring to. Did we also make that a requirement for this one? They are physically
on this property.
Moe: I don't remember that we did that. The only other thing we discussed on this
matter was that they were going to move the building over, so we have --
Zaremba: To gain the space in the drive aisle.
Moe: That's correct. And we did not --
Zaremba: Well, the requirement for the signs exist, but it's on the other property.
Although the signs, actually, will be placed on this property. My question is do we think
that should be added to this one or can we leave it the way it is? Does staff have an
opinion?
Hood: Not necessarily -- Mr. Chair, not necessarily an opinion, but just going through
the minutes that was never part of the motion. The applicant did say that they could
sign it no parking, but that was never part of the motion. So, reviewing it and putting
that in, that's -- your recollection is like mine, but when it came to the motion and --
Zaremba: I remember it being discussed, but I wasn't sure whether it was in the motion
or not.
Rohm: So, you're fine with leaving it in?
Zaremba: In that case I would leave it the way it is. So, I only have an amendment to--
I ask to remove A and I have one word amendment to C.
Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as adjusted?
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 4 of 90
Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. At this point this is where we start opening public hearings and before we
open our first hearing there is a few things that I want to just point out procedurally that I
think is important for those of you that come to these infrequently and want to be heard.
The procedure we go through is we will open the Public Hearing on a given project and
the first thing we do is we ask the staff to give their report. The staff's report -- the intent
of the staff's report is to provide insight into the project as it relates to the
Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. So, they take a look at everything, they say, okay,
here is compliance and here is where they have asked for consideration for maybe
additional amenities or things such as that, but they, basically, just present the project
as it relates to our laws of the City of Meridian. Then, we ask the applicant to give their
presentation. That's when the applicant has an opportunity to sell their project to the
Commission and point out the attributes of the project that they feel bring value to the
city. And each of these presentations are followed by a discussion period where we
have an opportunity to ask additional questions or points of clarification. Once the
applicant and the staff have both made their presentation, at that point in time it's open
to the public to make their presentations and if, in fact, there is a single person that is a
spokesman for a larger group, say a property owners association, that individual will be
afforded I believe it's ten minutes to speak, as opposed to three minutes where a person
is just speaking for themselves. So, that's the procedure that we go through here and
there is an opportunity for discussion after each person makes their presentation or
testimony as well and, then, once all testimony has been heard, then, the applicant has
an opportunity to come back up and respond to each testimony given. And so that's the
procedure that we go through.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat
Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-060 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on
49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by
Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road:
Rohm: And with that being said, I will open the first Public Hearing. It's a continued
Public Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05-058 and the continued Public
Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, PP 05-060, for the Keego Springs Subdivision.
Begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs
Subdivision -- I'll do kind of a quick recap. We are located on North Black Cat Road just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 5 of 90
south of Chinden. The applicant did apply for 176 single family homes on
approximately 50 acres and has submitted a revised plat that did include half of a
school site, which ended up being most of the discussion at the last hearing. Since the
last hearing it's my understanding that some kind of agreement has been reached
between the school district and the two properties. It sounds like that was a very late
developing agreement, so I'll let the applicant and Mr. Bigham address that. For your
consideration tonight, the applicant would like to move forward with this plat and staff is
in support of that with some comments that were kind of addressed at the last hearing.
If you recall, the applicant did provide a letter that outlined their proposed modifications
to our conditions. If you have those before you, I can kind of go through and give you
staffs position on those proposed modifications. But we would recommend -- I guess
our recommendation is still to move forward for approval with some of the changes that
we can note and carried over from the last hearing. The applicant had proposed to
modify condition 1.2.6 in regards to the amenity lots that were provided at the center of
the development. It, essentially, groups them on the same side of the street and in this
location, instead of having them on three separate pieces. We are in agreement with
their proposed language on that condition. They did propose to modify condition 1.2.11
in regards to the stub that staff would like to see to the south. We are still in support of
a stub to the south. So, we would not agree with their proposed language on that
condition. 1.2.12 was in regards to the necessity of Keego Springs providing a school
site. They have provided a school site here, so I think that one doesn't necessarily
apply so much anymore. And, then, 1.2.13, we are in agreement with the modification
that the date I believe that the applicant agreed to was June 1 st, 2006. If negotiations
with the school district weren't finalized by then, then, the subdivision would come back
in for a modification to subdivide that proposed half of a school lot into home sites. And
my notes indicate that June 1 st, 2006, was when that was going to be. I think with that I
will end staff's comments. We are -- staff is still in support of the elimination of the -- if
you will recall, if the stub street is provided at this location, as ACHD wanted to see, that
left this building lot in between the stub street and the school site. We would still
support the elimination of that building lot. And, then, the two building lots at the
northwest corner of the school site, we do not still -- we do not support those either for
concerns of visibility into the school site. The police department and school district both
would like to have a clear line of sight into that school site and not have this awkward
corner created by those home lots there. So, we would still support the elimination of
those two lots. I think that was another thing that the applicant did mention at the last
hearing. I think with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the
Commission.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Butler: Good evening to the Commissioners. Let's see. Is it okay? Is that on the
record? Yes. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. I thank
staff for the overview of the report. Staff indicated that there was an agreement reached
with the school district. We have only heard that in the grapevine. I have not been
contacted, my client has not been contacted, but for the purposes of this meeting, let's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 6 of 90
assume that there is an agreement. We would -- we are asking you tonight to
recommend to the City Council that the plat before you, with showing the school site, is
acceptable and assuming that Mr. Bigham has reached an agreement -- some type of
agreement, even verbally, with the adjacent property owners, we are more than happy
to work with Mr. Bigham until June 1, which was the date that he felt was a date that an
agreement could be reached, to see if there can be a co-agreement reached and we will
certainly do that. Nonetheless, we don't want to hold up this plat. We would, however,
because we don't know what this agreement will be and we don't -- we have only heard
this through the grapevine -- I don't think the Commission would mind if we come back,
you know, after June 1 st and modified this plat, as, obviously, anybody can, but just --
I'd like to confirm that on the record. And also if things look like they are not going
anywhere, we might come back for a modification earlier, at least get it in the works, but
we will do our best to work with the school district, if that's where this is. We are also
willing to do this so long as the -- it doesn't make us out of compliance with other
regulations. This stub street that staff would like to south -- and the engineers can
speak to this perhaps even more so than I -- does not meet the offset requirements for
ACHD. Now, it may be that ACHD will grant some leeway there, but we just need to be
on the record that if it causes us to be out of compliance, we may have to come back for
some modifications or do something to assist that. We also cannot agree to the loss of
the lots. After a long discussion with Mr. Bigham in which we talked about what the city,
clearly, in carrying the school district's water, in trying to encourage this -- this -- this
transaction, even though the Comprehensive Plan doesn't guide the school to this
location in the area, even though there is a lot more land in this area for a school site,
even though our client has 15 percent of the lots in this section, we are more than
happy to sit there and to go through that and try to do our best. But as I understand, the
negotiations were -- the discussions with Mr. Bigham, he agreed to this particular layout
of lots and Mr. Campbell told me that as I was getting up and if you need to ask him -- I
wasn't there, so if you need to ask him questions about that, he's here. So, just in
summary, we are asking you for your recommendation of approval to the Council with
the conditions of approval, without the loss of the lots, and we will work with the school
district to try to reach agreement between now and June 1 st. Thank you. Any
questions?
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would repeat a question I asked last time and I'm sorry that I
have forgotten what the answer was. Is this a pathway to the school site?
Butler: Well, I don't remember the answer, so --
Zaremba: Good. I'm not the only one that doesn't remember.
Butler: I think that may be a block demarcation, but I will have Mr. Campbell answer
that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 7 of 90
Campbell: We had -- Todd Campbell, the applicant. Reside at 2320 West Preston in
Eagle. We had agreed to putting in a pathway there, so desired by the Commission.
The way it's designated now is no -- there is no pathway there at this time.
Zaremba: I sort of thought that was the answer that you agreed, but it wasn't--
Campbell: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Campbell: Any other questions?
Rohm: At this time it's open to public testimony. Mr. Bigham.
Bigham: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian
Road, representing Joint School District No.2. Clarification. There has been no
agreement reached with the applicant on Keego Springs as to the acquisition of the
property. We have been unsuccessful in moving as quickly as I had hoped. The status
I can tell you today is tomorrow to Monday I expect to start documenting a verbal
agreement with the Volterra Subdivision to the south as to the amount and nature of the
land. It has not changed significantly from the discussion of two weeks ago -- or of a
month ago. Excuse me. There has been I think some proposed street realignment
within Volterra, but I have not seen those drawings. The Volterra engineer is present
tonight, but I don't know that it's constructive to get into that discussion, but we think we
are very close to having a tentative agreement with Volterra. My goal at that point is to
immediately, tomorrow to Monday, to approach Mr. Campbell to start talking about the
Keego Springs site. Our desire is to not hold the project up in having it move forward.
Our desire is to do those things which furthers the discussion and the immediate
acquisition of this site way prior to June 1, '06. So, it's at your discretion if you wish to
move the subdivision forward. Two comments very quickly. The two lots in the
northeast -- northwest corner, these two are -- or the one and a half right there, in a
perfect world we'd prefer that they weren't there. We can, as the school district, work
around the confines of those lots, so I will pass the buck to you, I guess, as to whether
or not you think they are appropriate. They do present the concerns that staff
mentioned for line of site supervision, et cetera, but it is a playground area, it's just less
than desiRabehl. But we can live with that. We would appreciate seeing a pedestrian
connection here, because it allows these streets to get into the adjacent subdivision to
the east and the discussion of the street -- I guess it doesn't show in through here. Not
discounting what the client said, I tend to agree, I don't think it meets the setback, so I
think it could be problematic to require them and should this be a school site and
continuing on down into Volterra, at first blush I don't think we would be desirous of
having that on-street parking lot directly by the school. I think it will simply wad up with
traffic. So, that I'm more interested as a pedestrian traffic from the adjacent
subdivisions into the school site and less worried about the traveling public connecting
through there through a street, because parents will stop right on that street to drop their
kids off to and from the school and I think it will present the periodic traffic jam that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 8 of 90
occurs around schools. So, again, I will somewhat side with the applicant that even if
we could get it in there, we would probably be asking that it not been there, but prefer it
to be a pedestrian friendly corridor, if nothing else. With that, I would stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. Any questions at this point?
Borup: Mr. Bigham. Mr. Chairman. We saw a preliminary site plat -- well, I don't even
know if it was preliminary. A sample site plan. I think it showed the buildings basically
to the south and playground to the north and I think that's what you just mentioned was
probable what the layout is going to be; is that correct?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup that is correct. The playground area is --
I'm hesitant to get my -- the other map out, but the building is actually sitting kind of in
here diagonally in relation to the world, because if Volterra's main street comes through
like that --
Borup: Okay. And, then, was there going to be any -- but there is going to be no public
access, no vehicle access at this point, then?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, no, all of our vehicular access comes off
of the main arterial, if you're a collector, that comes into the main road into Volterra. So,
the connection to Keego Springs is simply pedestrian access. That's why I'm so
concerned about a little stub road running from the main road into Volterra up into here.
I think you're going to get a lot of people using that road for an on-street parking lot.
Borup: Well, I'm just trying to understand completely the concern about these lots. I
mean it's not any different than these lots over here or these lots over here.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that's why I'm saying that the school
district is pretty neutral. It would be much better for organized play activities if that was
simply a square corner for maximum utilization, because little corners like this are hard
to utilized and space is like this. It would just be better utilization for the school district.
I think at the end, the high and better determining factor would be the staff comments in
terms of police department, fire, you know things that you're generally concerned with.
We can live with this condition. In a perfect world we would prefer not.
Borup: I'll discuss that with the -- I mean if the road did not go through, maybe it
wouldn't be too bad to eliminate that lot and get a little more -- it would be a little more
open site through there. We will see.
Bigham: That would be preferable, but that is discussion between you and the
applicant.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 9 of 90
Bigham: Thank you.
Rohm: Could you respond to the discussion on the stub street to the south a little bit?
Wilson: I can. And I guess I would ask for a little clarification from the applicant's
engineer about what this offset conflict is. In the ACHD report that's in your packets, the
stub street is approved by ACHD in this location, lining up with the center of the alley.
So, it has been approved by ACHD, so I -- as staff I'm a little confused by the offsets
that he can't meet when ACHD approved it.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back forward and --
Newton-Huckabay: Is there more public testimony?
Rohm: Well, there is nobody else signed up, but before we do that, is there anybody
else in the audience that would like to testify to this application before we get back to
the applicant? Seeing none -- please, come forward.
Howard: My name is Jim Howard with JJ Howard Engineering, 1530 East Commercial
in the great City of Meridian, and I know that there is a conflict with the spacing that's on
Black Cat Road. We have to setback so far. They won't allow that street. And all that I
would ask is that -- is that that be looked at again. I was surprised to see that comment.
We don't think that it's in conformance if we was to put a stub street in there, so we
have an issue with that and I think we can resolve that on the staff level. I just don't
agree with their comments, because we have their standards and we think that it's not in
conformance with those standards. So, that's the only way I can address it right now. I
hope that answers your question. I don't agree with staff.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd just -- clarification for me. Your point is not where it aligns
on your property, but the obvious other end of it --
Howard: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- and the collector road that it would connect with is --
Howard: We have got to set that street back so far from Black Cat and we are just not
in agreement with -- I just don't agree with staff. But I'm sure that we could resolve it at
the staff level.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just I guess quickly just a little
more discussion on this. In that location there was a stub approved with Volterra
Subdivision. So, that stub connects to the collector, has been approved by ACHD, they,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 10 of 90
actually, require -- the initial plan, if the school site wasn't there, there was a stub here
and ACHD, actually, required that they move that 140 feet to the west to line up with the
stub that was provided at Volterra Subdivision, which lies approximately 330 feet east of
Black Cat Road and that's directly from the ACHD staff report.
Rohm: So, as long as the staff -- the stub to the south aligns with the one from Volterra
that stubs to the north, then, it should be okay.
Wilson: Yeah.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, are we into discussion?
Rohm: We are into discussion.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I have any real opinion about the two items under contention, but
I would like to add the pathway at the north end of the school. The overall basic project
seems like one that we could easily recommend. My sense of what Mr. Bigham said
was that he's cautiously optimistic that the school site will happen, so I would be
comfortable forwarding this to the City Council in pretty much this configuration that we
are seeing now, with the knowledge if the school site falls through, they may come back
and talk to us again about it. That doesn't answer the two hanging questions, but it's an
opinion about the overall project.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: One thing I'm still kind of unclear on -- I know last month when this came before
us, in regards to the stub street, was it not also discussed that, in fact, we weren't going
to do a stub street there, that we would do a walking path in that location as well, not
necessarily the one you're speaking of, Commissioner Zaremba?
Rohm: One or the other?
Moe: Right.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Yeah.
Moe: Anyone else remember that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 11 of 90
Butler: I do. I think I do. I think that's part and parcel of some of your other decisions in
this area, too. If you were looking for the connectivity and if it wasn't to be vehicular,
then, you would have a pedestrian pathway.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Did you have additional comments?
Butler: Just a few comments.
Rohm: Yes.
Butler: It does appear that Mr. Bigham has made some progress and we certainly wish
him good speed. So, that means that there would be no reason to hold this plat from
going forward. Speaking just, again, to these lot -- these lots, the loss, again, of just
one more lot, when we have put so much into this -- and this is not even the main
entrance to the school, would not seem to be reasonable in this case. With regard to
the stub -- and with regard to the stub street, if ACHD is requiring this and the pathway
is what is preferred, then, we'd just ask Meridian to be the go between with us and
ACHD to insure that we don't have an issue with ACHD. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mrs. Butler, while you're still here, let me ask staff a question. If the two or
three lots that are being discussed remained in the plat and, actually, it also applies to
all the ones along the north boundary of the school property as well, isn't there some
provision to require an open vision fence, so that at least those lots have vision into the
school property? I think we have done that on other school properties.
Wilson: There is a disagreement of whether that would be required by ordinance. If
that was a common open space for the subdivision, it would definitely be required by
ordinance. But where that is just a lot in the subdivision, I don't think it's required by
code, but you could certainly require it as a Commission.
Zaremba: And let me ask the applicant whether that would be acceptable.
Butler: It would be acceptable as a condition.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Any additional discussion on this project?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 12 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to know if we could pull back and see the picture of the
broader area. Where is the nearest stub to the south now?
Borup: It's not on there, is it? I was interested in the same thing. So, we don't have the
Volterra plat?
Wilson: Unfortunately, we do not have Volterra in our system. I think it's a safe
assumption that one connects to that stub to Bainbridge --
Newton-Huckabay: So, there is the stub in Bainbridge and there is the stub that's in
Volterra that heads north?
Wilson: Right. And the plat shown on the screen is not the current proposed plat. That
doesn't have the school site and --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Wilson: I really do wish Volterra was in the system, because we could see where that
stub is and it would be pretty obvious that --
Borup: From the other testimony -- or from what you interpreted the ACHD report, the
stub is approximately right where -- lined up with the alley?
Wilson: Right lining up with the alley. Yeah.
Borup: And that was a condition of Volterra also --
Wilson: Yes.
Borup: -- that that stub will be there. It doesn't make sense to have two stub streets --
or I mean a stub street that doesn't go anywhere, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think given the fact that the other -- the nearest stub appears
to me to be quite a bit to the east, that's the only other opportunity to connect to the
south. I would think that it would be important to have one.
Wilson: See if we can get a -- Mr. Bigham just provided me this piece of paper that
appears to show Volterra's preliminary plat, showing the stub that would be
approximately at the middle of that alley.
Borup: The edge of the alley. They'll have to redesign. I think they could redesign their
drainage pond -- just slide things down.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think they are going to do that now.
Borup: Sure they can. No, not the stub street. They can redesign these lots.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 13 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. Well, again, that said, I
would recommend that we require the stub street on that.
Rohm: Require the stub street to interconnect to Volterra.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Rohm: And, then, have the pathway over to the east, so you would have the stub street
that connects north and south between the two subdivisions and, then, a pathway
coming into what appears to be the playground to the east.
Borup: And no elimination of lots.
Rohm: And no elimination of lots. Is that kind of what your thoughts are on that,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Did you say two pathways or one?
Rohm: One pathway--
Newton-Huckabay: The one pathway to the north --
Borup: The other pathway would just be the street sidewalk.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, it is.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: And I could support the -- leaving the two building lots there in that odd
corner, if we added the requirement that the applicant agreed to an open vision fence
along the entire school property line.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have any additional comments?
Moe: I would say I would be in agreement with those -- those items.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058 and PP 05-
060.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058
and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 14 of gO
Zaremba: The person that moves to close the Public Hearing usually ends up making
the motion, don't they?
Rohm: Lucky you.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I made good enough notes, but let me give it a stab.
Newton-Huckabay: You're the most eloquent of the group.
Zaremba: See if I ever close a Public Hearing again.
Borup: Oh, we need to find the staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have notes from the last hearing.
Zaremba: I made some notes on my copy of the staff report and now I'm not finding
that. Let me ask staff to refresh -- on Exhibit B, you gave us a couple changes. What
was the first one?
Wilson: The first one would have been condition 1.2.6.
Zaremba: Okay. Hang on. Let me get there. Yeah, I did mark the other two. And
what was the comment there?
Wilson: We did agree with the applicant's language that they proposed and I'll go
ahead and read that. The preliminary plat shall be revised to relocate the amenities,
i.e., tot lot, gazebo, barbecue, and clubhouse and pool area on revised Lot 11, Block 7.
Lots 28,29,30, and 31 of Block 10, and Lots 4,5,6,7 of Block 4 will be placed in the
amenities original locations. This will consolidate all neighborhood amenities, tot lot,
barbecue area, and pool in one location to prevent pedestrians crossing public streets
as neighborhood residents use the facilities and result in no loss of buildable lots.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-058
and PP 05-060, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of
February 2,2006, which meeting was continued to today, with the following changes:
On Exhibit ß, paragraph 1.2.6, substitute the applicant's wording that was just read by
Mr. Wilson. On paragraph 1.2.12, that can be deleted as satisfied. It has been
satisfied. 1.2.13 has also been satisfied and can be deleted. Let's see. I would
reinforce the requirement for the stub street, which I believe is stated in here. I would
add two items. One is that there will be a pedestrian path access along the north school
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 15 of 90
property line. And another addition is that all perimeter fencing along the school
property line will be open vision. Did I capture everything?
Newton-Huckabay: Did you want to make the June 6 --
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. That was what I -- was on that point 13. Was your
motion to delete the whole -- that whole -- whole section?
Zaremba: That's the way I noted it, but if that's not correct, what should it be? 1.2.13
you're talking about?
Borup: Mr. Wilson, you say you're acceptable with the applicant's wording of that?
Wilson: We were, with the one change that they had noted January 1st, 2007, and--
Borup: Change it to June 1 st.
Wilson: June 1 st, 2006.
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I'd change my motion that 1.2.13 accepts the applicant's
wording. Okay. That means the date is January 6th -- or I mean the date is July 2006.
Borup: June 1 st.
Zaremba: June 1st. What did I say? June 1st, 2006. Okay. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: AZ 05-067
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to
R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by
Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 05-060
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family
development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District
for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 16 of90
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 16,
2006, for AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. Both of these items relating to Casa Meridiana
or something like that. In any case -- and start with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is Casa
Meridiana Subdivision -- it is not a subdivision. Casa Meridiana multi-family request.
It's, actually, being requested as a 6.9 acre annexation. It is in the southeast corner of
Victory and Locust Grove. We lost a piece of our presentation tonight. North road
Victory. South -- north-south road is Locust Grove. This has a 32 unit single family
residential attached product that would be with this. This is relative of a condominium
plat, which we would see in the future. The second -- or the third request would be that
these are private streets; they are designed as a 26-foot wide road section. As your
staff report details, staff is in support of the multi-family type of units and the elevations
detailed with this as shown. However, ACHD and staff do agree there is a lack of
interconnectivity with this type of development, mainly because when the Locust Grove
Overpass goes in, Locust Grove will most likely be operating at an arterial level of
traffic, especially with the number of units that have yet to be developed in that north --
in that north-south corridor. It's currently listed as a collector road and staff does
anticipate that that level of traffic to increase significantly and, therefore, the access
point to Locust Grove is recommended to be eliminated and a stub street to the south
be provided in a location to be determined by ACHD. ACHD staff report does
recommend that the applicant provide an east-west connection, but if you look at the
overall -- let me go back to the presentation. There are only four parcels in this location
and what staff would anticipate would be that the parcel to the south would provide an
east-west connection and, then, there would only be one other future connection to
Victory Road in a north-south location. There is, as you can see, several water features
proposed on this -- actually, you probably can't see. It's pretty small. There is a pond
located in the northwest corner. A type of a stream. There are some existing wetland
features. They are not designated wetlands and are not going to be required for
mitigation on this site, but with those types of features you can anticipate high ground
water. We do have -- this is another area that we have high ground water issues and
staff is recommending thatthe Commission take those into consideration. Let me try
and get back to where I'm going. I guess it does not go as far south as I had hoped.
Just immediately south of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is the Bellingham Park
Subdivision that had significant issues with ground water as well and the Commission
did institute some restrictions on building type due to the -- the lack of desirability of any
type of ground water to be occurring in crawl spaces for future development. So, that
would be a consideration that we would like the Public Works to make sure that the
drainage of these types of roadways would be adequate. Provided the applicant is
currently showing attached sidewalks on this site. This is proposed to change to a type
of detached sidewalk with a drainage swale, obviously, to further help address the high
ground water issues in this area. The applicant does have a very amenity laden product
where there is a pool and clubhouse in the southwest corner. There would be parking
provided for the pool and clubhouse. There is a pathway and many water features as
amenities to this site. A walking path would connect to the east and are shown to be
connecting to the south, but the north-south connection would be proposed as a public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 17 of 90
street. Now, with the staff report the recommendation is ~or a redesign, but the staff is
asking this Commission in order to give better guidance ê\s how you would like to
proceed. ACHD has made some special notices to the City of Meridian. Now, I will tell
you that the ACHD staff members have pretty much -- twØ of them, their major staff
,
members, have been -- have left ACHD and any type of recommendation and -- if you
do table this, we will want ACHD to look at it and it may sliow this project down
significantly due to their lack of staff at ACHD to review thlese types of projects. The
applicant does -- is showing gates on these sites. Gate~ are not allowed on private
streets, which is a major concern, but is not -- it's not an option at this time. The
applicant has indicated that they would be proposing or p~ssibly be coming forward in
front of this Commission with another request for a UDC tßxt amendment. Staff is not
going to comment on that, because we do not have anyth,ing at this time to comment
on. That is up to the applicant to determine at a latter dati:!. At this time staff has
presented Findings for a -- consistent with denial, but we are recommending that this
,
project be redesigned and reevaluated as to its -- being in the best interest of the City of
Meridian for the overall site design. And with that I will stqnd for questions, but most
likely your questions are for the applicant. I
I
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? W:ould the applicant like to come
forward, please? I
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Russ Phillips ,with Insight Architects, 2238
Broadway Avenue, Boise, Idaho. We have got an exciting project here and we also
have a short PowerPoint presentation that we'd like to refE;!r to at this point. It should be
under Casa Meridiana. And, please, don't get hung up on¡ that name. It's -- we found it
a little difficult to run out smoothly, so right now we'd like t<p keep it filed under that
name, but we are reevaluating the name of the project. To start out with, while this
,
comes up, the -- you know, I moved to the Treasure Valley when I was 22 and Meridian
was a little blip on the radar screen and, obviously, it's grown a lot. We have all seen
what's happened and part of what the community has beeh very good at picking up is
that there is a chance of identity loss and through the Co~prehensive Plan and many
other -- many other positive things; I think Meridian is taki~g care of a lot of these issues
and establishing its identity. One of the main things that v{e want to present tonight is a
community -- a very small community, but a community that will respond to the diversity
I
that is mentioned many times throughout the Comprehem~ive Plan. Diversity in
lifestyles, residential living environment. This is a project that really has been
thoughtfully looked out by Oaas Laney. Oaas Laney is a qevelopment -- a developer
that is local based and has promoted projects that have been beneficial to communities
in different ways and we have seen this community as a gbod example of how to create
and bring to Meridian some diversity and in its residential environment. The next slide,
please. This site was brought to us a year ago and it's takan a year of thoughtfulness to
look at what type of development makes the most sense h:ere. It's a site that can stand
alone, we believe, with -- mainly because it's 6.9 acres. It ¡has access on two collectors
and it can stand alone in this type of configuration. The m~rket originally was looked at
to -- when we talk about diversity, is a -- was a market of say empty nesters, couples
that have reached the point where they would like to -- the: kids are out of the house,
I
I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 18 of 90
1---
I
i
I
their homes have appreciated beyond their imagination, so that they could, then, move
into a very high quality environment to live in and, then, in -- it would be secure in that
it's a small environment and also the gates we viewed as really key in providing
security, so that when the residents are gone on a trip that they maintain a sense of
security over their homes, not only with neighbors, but also with traffic flow. As we went
through many focus groups, we found that also dual income young professionals also
are looking for this type of housing alternative, where, essentially, the homeowners
association takes care of -- of the outdoor areas and, yet, you still have a home that's
roughly 22, 23 hundred square feet. The amenities that Joe mentioned include -- we
are working with -- due to the high ground water, trying to play with the water in some
different areas. We have got a plan we have been working with, our civil engineers, and
Meridian's public works as far as retaining the water. The ground water is somewhat
artificial in that the irrigation is affecting that, so we have been monitoring that and we
are trying to get some better analysis here during the next couple months. Other
amenities is this is built on a -- kind of a Mediterranean style of homes, which the next
slides will show. Hence, the name Casa, it will be a collection of casa homes. Some
are detached homes, single family, as in this -- a couple of these. Three of these.
Others are attached in pairs and some in threes. We are looking in keeping with a
Tuscany or a -- not to be confused with the subdivision, like with a Mediterranean feel.
The architecture, as you will see, reflects -- truly reflects this type of housing style with
clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic, but undulations in the building to create shadows in its
massing. We are looking at the activity center besides the pool and courts and we are
even looking at landscaping as far as types of olive trees that will grow in this climate.
So, we are trying to look at this site all the way into the building. Each residential unit
will be a condominium. It will be owned outright. We have a standard downstairs plan,
which is 1,500 square feet, two bedroom, as planned upstairs, trying to look at custom --
from the customer point custom designs. We have got four different alternatives for
upstairs, including a rec room option with baths, master bedroom suite, and a library
and den type situation. A third bedroom. So, first time owners will have a variety of
really a pallet to look at as far as kind of customizing their own home. We also have
interior designs, one which will be traditional, kind of Old World in feel and the other will
be a metro feel, to appeal to different age groups or lifestyles. In addition, outdoors,
although we have got roughly 40 percent in open kind of common areas, each unit will
have a patio which is trellised, you will have an outdoor kitchen with an outdoor fireplace
and -- so that's another amenity there. The main concern -- there seems to be two
concerns. One is the private streets. We did meet with ACHD in the very beginning
and, then, again, during a tech review period and the initial -- the initial concept hasn't
changed much and ACHD really was kind of -- they didn't have an issue at that time
with private streets. They did bring up connectivity that that's something that Meridian
has been looking at. In meeting with Meridian city planners, connectivity was
discussed. We discussed vehicular connectivity and pedestrian connectivity. We opted
to go with pedestrian connectivity to the south and to the east and not consider the
vehicular connectivity. After reviewing the staff report and meeting with staff yesterday,
if there truly is a desire on the city's part for vehicular connectivity to the south, then, we
certainly would look at a redesign of this area in here. We certainly -- we've spent a
year thoughtfully going through the project and we would like to do what we can to work
~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 19 of 90
with staff to continue through the process and not backtrack and I feel that we could
work with ACHD and staff to reach a solution, depending on what the Commission and
City Council looked at. Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney is also here tonight and I believe
he'd like to say a couple things after we show a quick slide. This is a rendering of what
the casa collection would look like from the street side. Next. And, then, we have a
series of slides, you can just go through, Joe, that shows the -- kind of the inspiration,
the catalyst for the design of this type. Clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic design, but,
again, in this type of climate with lots of sun, the shadows and massing really provide
the buildings with their character. We do have a fence on -- which, if you can imagine
around the perimeter we have a six foot fence, which will be the same type of materials
as the buildings, they will be a concrete block wall with stucco and the detailing and,
then, the gates will be cast iron. It's a little hard to see, but this is perhaps the best slide
we could find in a hurry that conveys the type of wall we are looking at. The trellised
area over the patios and the gazebo would look something like the last slide right here.
So, do you have any questions before I have our client say a few words?
Rohm: I think not. Let's--
Phillips: Okay.
Oaas: Thank you, Russ. Commissioner Rohm and Planning and Zoning Commission.
I'm Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney, 519 West Front in Boise. And just a couple quick items.
I know you're very busy tonight, but just to give you an idea of the type of projects that
we have done here in the valley, we have built a number of class A office buildings over
in Nampa near the Idaho Center. We also are -- refurbished an old warehouse building
on front street in Boise and it's, actually, the first -- we are very proud to be the first Leed
certified commercial building in the state of Idaho. We were just granted our
certification by the U.S. Green Building Council here just last week, so we are -- we like
to think of ourselves as being sort of on the forefront of not only good development, but
progressive thinking. Another development we are working on in downtown Boise is the
Ada County Family Justice Center that will be a processing center for victims of sexual
abuse and child abuse. So, we are -- we try to focus on projects that we think are not
only valuable from a development standpoint, but also valuable to the community. Here
in the Meridian area our predecessor company developed the Generations Plaza
project. We are also in the process of finishing up the Double D site out on the corner
of Victory and Locust Grove and we are in the process of demolishing that ugly silo
building down on Main Street where Double D used to be located and we plan to put a
very nice -- probably a mixed use retail office development on that site. So, beginning
of next week we should see that coming down as well. We see the casa project here at
Ten Mile Creek as being a continuation of what we really like to do as -- in terms of high
quality projects that really are adding more to the community than taking away and we
respectfully request you to consider seriously, but also consider what we have done to
consider, really, what we are about. And if the Commission decides that there is
additional work by way of staff's recommendations with regard to access, we would
respectfully request approval with an understanding that we would go back and work
these out. We think that the staff has presented some very workable solutions and we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 20 of 90
are quite willing to move forward, but we would prefer, because this has been in
process for well over a year, we would prefer to move forward with the project without
delay. Thank you very much. Any questions?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Based on what you just said, then, I would anticipate that the stub street to the
south would be okay for you, if, in fact, we were to require having the stub street to the
south, as well as removal of the gates? Basically, just noting what the UDC code and
whatnot is. Quite frankly, the UDC is not that old, so, therefore, we are not really -- I'm
not amenable, I should say, to changing rules out of the UDC when we just have really
adopted it and started working with it now. So, I'm just curious as far as those two
items. You say that you will work with staff and those would be items that you could
work with.
Oaas: Commissioner Moe, I guess I would like to sort of bifurcate those two issues
and, one, the stub street to the south we think staff has come up with some reasonable
suggestions for how we might be able to address that. We do, however, feel that -- that
the gates in this community, although it is a UDC requirement that's recently been
adopted, we feel that that's very very important to the look and feel and workings of this
development. I guess it's our -- it's our feeling that the UDC ordinance with regard to
gates was primarily focused on commercial developments and because -- and because
of that, it sort of got spilled over into the residential area as well and in doing so there is
a portion of the diversity that Russ Phillips spoke to, a diversity of the -- of the
environment and residential community here in Meridian that's being -- that's not being
addressed and people who are desirous of living in those communities are either going
to Boise or going elsewhere and Meridian, in some respects, is eliminating itself from
consideration of people who are interested in that -- in that type of living. We would
strongly encourage the Commission to reconsider that and we would be more than
willing to -- and, in fact, we plan to submit an application for modification to the
ordinance and spell out specifically why we think it's important from a residential
standpoint to adopt changes to the code to allow gates in certain circumstances,
because -- because of the fact that Meridian is driving that segment of the population
away.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. I picked up on your comment about the Leeds certified building.
Those are not part of our new UDC, so we can't require it, but we certainly encourage it.
Are you planning to apply any of those principals to these buildings?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 21 of 90
Oaas: Commissioner Zaremba, we have found that the Leeds concepts, being what we
consider to be on the forefront of this activity or this movement, has been very
enlightening for us. The project that we just -- that we completed and that's where our
offices are, the Front Five building down on Front Street, is the Leed certified building
and the first -- by the way, the first one in the state of Idaho, but -- but because we were
on the front end of that development, the Leeds -- adopting the Leeds concepts made it
more expensive and we think that, you know, that's understandable when you're on the
front end, because a lot of the materials that are required for Leeds buildings and
sustainable buildings are not readily accessible and available in the area. However, a
lot of the concepts of bringing daylighting into buildings and water conservation
measures and looking at -- at bringing fresh air into buildings when the CO2 levels rise
to the fact that -- or rise to the level where people are becoming more lethargic and the
fact of light pollution. You know, if you drove by our building downtown on Front Street
at night you would notice that there is very very little light that shines up into the air
that's causing, you know, light pollution. The lights that we have shine downward. So,
from our perspective it's easy to look at adopting a lot of these same ideas, even though
it may not be, quote, a Leeds certified project, we'd like to -- we'd like to bring these
ideas into our projects, because we think they make sense.
Zaremba: Good. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commission Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think that we should probably move on with public testimony and
get this hearing going.
Rohm: Thank you.
Oaas: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. There is no nobody else signed up to this, but at this point in time
we certainly are open to public testimony. Please come forward.
Walsh: Thank you. My name is Paul Walsh. My address is 2655 South Simsbury in
Boise. I live over in the Muirwood Subdivision, almost Meridian. Wish I was. I'm
working with the development group that has the parcel just to the south of this project.
Okay. We have a small parcel, 6.53 acres. We ended up getting two stub roads. We
got the one to the east requested and, then, also the one -- would be our north
boundary, their south boundary, okay? A couple comments that I have as far as, one,
the gates in there, I think lends real well to the subdivision and it would also avoid a cut-
through that we see in the subdivision I live in in Meridian -- or in Muirwoods. We have
that on the corner of Victory and Cloverdale. I have a friend that lives there, he had the
police come out, they issued 17 citations in a four hour period for cut-throughs in this
same configuration. So, I think the gates would alleviate some of that problem. Okay?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 22 of 90
Then, as far as the stub road coming in, in the event there was a gate there, it doesn't
lend to the exclusiveness of the project. Okay. Also, secondly, the linear footage that I
have along that north-south boundary there is limited and to add the dimension of an
additional road in there just isn't conducive to our project on the other end either. My
thought was is -- I understand for emergency access. There is plenty of access. I'm
only doing 26 lots. So, it's a small project. And with their 32 lots, the need for an
additional or an emergency access is limited and my thought was the pedestrian path
that was shown that's connecting the two projects, if emergency access was a concern,
if we turn that into an emergency entrance with breakaways, that would limit through
traffic, would maintain the exclusiveness of their project, and would reduce our footage
and, then, we could kill, basically, two birds with one stone, get the pedestrian cross-
through that we are looking for to get over to the regional pathway that we are installing
along Ten Mile Creek and I think it would just lend well to both projects where we are
working together, basically, so --
Rohm: Thank you. Interesting. I appreciate your comments. At least from an adjacent
property perspective, that kind of ties in with what they are saying. So, thank you very
much. Any questions?
Borup: Just clarification. Mr. Walsh, you support their project just as they have
designed it it sounds like.
Walsh: Yes.
Borup: Other than adding the pathway.
Walsh: Correct. I think that would be a good alternative for emergency access if that
was a concern.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Just maybe one other question, Mr. Chairman. Did you say you had talked to
ACHD on a preliminary basis --
Walsh: I have not. We are just starting our drawings.
Borup: Okay. So, you are not planning a stub street to your north, then, at this point?
Walsh: I think my engineer is drafting one, because staff requested it. As I talk with her
-- I didn't make that meeting. As I talk with her I'd like to find an alternative solution to
that stub street.
Borup: Okay. But you're definitely planning to the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 23 of 90
Walsh: Yes. That's been requested.
Borup: Yeah.
Walsh: I didn't care for that one either, but --
Borup: Well--
Walsh: -- I understand -- I understand the purpose of that one, okay, and then -- so, we
are not going to battle with it and we can see -- you know, I want to try and design it to
where I don't create a cut-through, because that seems to be the big concern.
Borup: And you can do that with road designs easily.
Walsh: Right. And so we are working towards that.
Borup: Thank you.
Moe: One question. Are you anticipating, then, to take -- for a road to go out onto
Locust Grove as well -- into your property as well?
Walsh: Yes, sir.
Moe: Okay.
Walsh: For about -- we are that parcel just to the north of the canal, so we have -- I'm
not sure the frontage on there. We were going to bring one in off of Locust Grove,
meander it though, and, then, take the stub to the east. I got a real limited size there -- I
got about a hundred feet of frontage on that east boundary, so we are working through
that. I kind of felt that the small parcel owners got left with all the stubs. You know, we
had Tuscany was a large parcel, they could absorb some of their footage a little better
and the way it went in that the small parcels got left with all the stub roads. So, it really -
- with the way things are moving now, it leaves us with limited lots to make the project
feasible, but we are working through those. So, I just -- looking for my project along
with two stub streets on five acres and 26 lots, it eats you up pretty fast.
Moe: Well, I guess I'm not going to speak for staff and whatnot, but I would anticipate
that the reason, more or less, for the stub street to the south for this project that we are
hearing tonight is the fact that I'm not so sure they'd like to see any access onto Locust
Grove off that property to the south, because you're going have, you know, two streets
coming out of Locust Grove right in that same area right there. You don't have much
frontage along Locust Grove from our site that we are hearing tonight, so I think the
intent was that that stub street take care of your development with no access onto
Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 24 of 90
Walsh: In their defense, I think that, you know, we are looking six to eight thousand
square foot single families. Nice project, similar to Tuscany Village across the street
with Craftsman style homes, where their property is so exclusive as to the design, they
have put a lot of care into the design of the structures, the values that are going to be
there, to have a subdivision that I feel is on a lower -- you know, it's not built to those
type of price per square footages, it wouldn't -- if I had that project over there, I wouldn't
want another subdivision dumping in on mine and creating all that traffic through there,
because it's going to affect the marketing of their project.
Moe: I understand that. But the same point now we are dumping off a whole bunch
more traffic into Locust Grove in two access points. That's another concern I had.
Walsh: Right. Understood.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Okay. Seeing none, discussion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: A couple of points that come to mind and almost all of them in support of the
staff report. I would confirm Commissioner Moe's instinct that both ACHD's idea and
the city's idea would be to have fewer accesses to Locust Grove. I think one of the
things we are going to discover, when the Locust Grove overpass is built and, therefore,
Locust Grove is connected, the two halves of Locust Grove connected north and south,
this is going to become the relief valve of choice for people who need to move north and
south in or through Meridian and don't want to be on Eagle Road or Meridian Road.
This -- I'm willing to bet that within hours of that bridge being open, that whole corridor,
the whole Locust Grove corridor, will exceed its 20 year design capacity. Probably
within minutes, maybe hours. Therefore, this is very likely -- Locust Grove is very likely
to be a very major thoroughfare. I'm sure it will need to be upgraded from a collector to
an arterial at some point. Probably not too far off. And, therefore, I very much support
the idea of not having the property we are talking about have an access to Locust
Grove, and also the two properties in combination with the gentleman that provided the
very good comments, that there should not be two accesses there. I think the access
should be done through the stub street, as staff has recommended, and precisely for
that reason. And I also would like to comment on the gate situation. I was on the
committee that helped write the UDC and gates were discussed at length. I'll have to
admit that my personal opinion is that they give a false sense of security. They slow fire
and police down more than they slow thieves down, who can get around them anyhow,
and I joined in the majority who wrote into the UDC the no gates and we did mean
residential subdivisions for that purpose. That being said, I can also understand the
applicant's discussion that it's the desire of Meridian to have a variety of housing types
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 25 of 90
and we usually interpret that to mean that we need to have more affordable housing.
But there are also people on the other end of the scale who, as the applicant points out
and other people have pointed out in other hearings, are well to do empty nesters, they
want to down size the house and maintenance that they are living, but they don't
necessarily want to cheapen how they live, and those people have the opinion that a
gate provides them with some security and I don't think it's in the best interest of
Meridian to force those people to go live in Eagle. We should make provision for them
also. The current ordinance does not allow us to approve a gate. So, there really isn't
any question about whether we can approve the gate, we can't. I would suggest to the
applicant if they wish to pursue a change to the ordinance, there are a couple of
elements that need to be included. The gate needs to be far enough from the major
road, either a collector or an arterial, that three or four cars could stack before getting to
the gate. There also needs to be a turnaround or an escape, so that somebody that
turns in and discovers there is a closed gate, doesn't have to back out onto the arterial
to escape. There needs to be a turnaround before the gate. And I would encourage
them, if they are going to apply for a change to the ordinance, include those elements.
The other issue is a very small one. I have lived in places that had decorative olive
trees and they are very pretty for part of the year, but I have not -- I'm not aware of a
fruitless olive tree and they make a terrible mess. They are not good for humans to eat
without being processed. Birds will eat them, but the fruit drops and stains and I would
urge them to reconsider that, unless they have found a fruitless olive tree. Those are
my points.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Anybody else have some comments on
this application?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have a couple of comments regarding access to Locust
Grove. There we go. We have access here. We are looking for access here. We are
going to have to have an access for this piece of property here. Probably access over
here off of these ones, but I think it's going to be critical that we limit -- limit the access
on Locust Grove for the reasons mentioned, but -- and if we don't, we are going to get --
we have all these pieces of property that would like to have access onto Locust Grove --
in my mind, the only one that can reasonably have it would be this parcel here. So, I
would be in support of -- one, I'm in support of the stub street to the south property and
the only access into the development from the Victory Road property. Victory Road.
North. Right there. Other than that, I think it's a nice development.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I, actually, have discovered I had a question that 1 would like
to ask of the applicant.
Rohm: By all means.
.~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 26 of 90
Zaremba: And have staff listen in as well. Mr. Phillips, if you'd come back up. And that
is one of the new provisions of the UDC, which we are all trying to learn this new thing,
but I just want to make sure you're aware of it. In multi-family developments there is a
requirement to actually have a storage building for maintenance and landscaping
materials and equipment and stuff like that and I didn't see that on the drawing, but is
that something that knowing that there is a provision that that's required, can you add
that someplace? And I would ask that it be made of similar materials to the rest of the --
Phillips: Chairman Rohm and Commissioners, in lieu of having a separate storage
building, which, as you saw, was a very small site, what we have done is we have
oversized the garages and, hopefully, this will satisfy the requirements -- in our view it
did. These garages are approximately 28 feet long. Standard garages are normally 22,
maybe 24 feet. So, we have got, essentially, six feet all across the back and we have
also increased the width, so that we have an extra two feet on each side, so when car
doors open that there will still be two feet on each side, plus six feet all across the back.
So, we felt that this should more than accommodate storage. Exterior storage. Inside
the -- each of the residences we also have, essentially, a storage room and that's
roughly, I believe, maybe seven or eight by ten, but -- does that address your --
Zaremba: I appreciate the first part of your statement as increasing personal storage for
the people that would live there. My question was more directed to the second part of
your statement that came in at the end about the storage for what would be the
association or the maintenance of the common property and the point that was
discussed in the group that was writing the UDC was that in subdivisions of multi-family
dwellings that don't have a separate storage building, then, maintenance materials end
up being left out in a parking stall and, you know, if you have your own lawn mower, that
ends up sitting out in the parking stall. So, the requirement is more aimed at equipment
and supplies owned by the association or whoever is doing the maintenance.
Phillips: All right. I understand. No, we don't have a separate building at this time, but
we will definitely take a look at that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Phillips: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would request that we take a poll of the Commissioners in where
we are heading towards tabling this for redesign; I would prefer not to get into one of our
infamous redesign two hour public hearings if we could avoid it this evening. Not to be
blunt.
Rohm: Well, that -- the point is -- yeah, I don't have any problem with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 27 of 90
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to lead off. I think it's an excellent project. I
think it would be a nice addition to Meridian. I do think it needs to have the changes
that are mentioned in the staff report and a few other things we have met. But I would
consider those tweaking to some extent, but I think being respectful to the applicant's
request to move it on, unfortunately, we have been burned by redesigns a few times
that didn't get to the City Council looking like what we thought we recommended. So,
this Commission is uncomfortable approving something that's going to be changed. At
least I personally am and I think I felt that from the others. So, my intention would be to
continue this with some specific changes that need to be made and hear it again, but
with the attitude that it will be approved at some point.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Point of clarification. Don't we still need to see a preliminary plat?
Guenther: Mr. Borup, with this -- again, I want to point out one major fact, is that ACHD
did recommend that this would be public streets. If this was public streets, then, we
would have a plat.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: We are still -- staff is still recommending that these remain private streets
and meet ACHD's conditions. Now, ACHD is going to need to review this with the
redesign. However, by the redesign of the staff -- city staffs conditioning, that would still
be sent back to ACHD, but we are not going to get a new staff report or new staff
comments from ACHD for quite awhile as what we would anticipate. Now, if we brought
it in for a plat, it's only going to be for a condo plat. If we require those to be public
streets, that's going to require a plat in itself and this design is not going to be conducive
to public streets as it's currently shown. Even if you required the connections to be
public, we would still need to have some mechanism in order to transfer that property as
right of way to ACHD, which this site would not be conducive of.
Borup: So, Mr. Phillips, this is strictly a condo, so the ownership is of the building itself,
not of any of the property around it? There are not any deeded lots? Is that what you're
saying?
Phillips: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. Well, continuing on with the other comments, I agree with Commissioner
Zaremba, I like the diversity; I like to see something different like this. I mean we have
had gated communities in the past -- maybe that's another question. Have there been
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 28 of 90
serious problems with any of our other gated -- well, actually, I can only think of one, but
has there been problems with any other gated communities in Meridian?
Zaremba: The two that I know of are at the south end of Bear Creek and about one
block from where I live.
Borup: Off of Linder?
Zaremba: It's off of Talamore, which is the street -- it's not actually on the arterial, which
is Black Cat, it's maybe a quarter of a mile in on a collector street, if you're visualizing
the area --
Borup: The question was has there been problems?
Zaremba: That has not been a problem. It's not on an arterial, but that has been no
problem at all. When we discussed Bear Creek -- and I believe their gate was approved
-- it was with a requirement that there be enough stacking depth and that there be an
escape and I haven't heard anything from the fire or police.
Borup: ACHD did address the gates. They said that a minimum of 50 feet.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: But they didn't mention anything about the escape-or turnaround or anything.
Zaremba: Then we had one other that was right next to the high school and we
recommended a disapproval of the gates and don't know what City Council did with that.
Borup: Well, the comment was made that, you know, it's a nice project and -- but it's
not going to be the same project if we change it. And I guess I'm not sure which
direction I'm going, but, again, you know, if we start adding the stub streets and
eliminate the gates, it's not the same project.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to see a redesign.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Pretty much just as I spoke earlier and I'm in agreement with Commissioner
Zaremba. Quite frankly, I would like to see a redesign in regards to the stub street, as
well as the gating.
Phillips: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, if I may go ahead and speak. You know,
again, we would -- we have met with staff yesterday and we believe that we discussed
the private street issue and it seemed to us that we have -- we are pretty close on -- we
are on the same wave length as far as how to resolve that issue. The gates we are
preparing a text amendment, which we will be presenting to City Council and the Mayor
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 29 of 90
and we feel like at this point that the feedback we have gotten from the neighborhood
meeting, from working with staff and ACHD and other folks, that we are really close and
what we really prefer, if you would go along with us, is to sit down and just work out,
really, a few details and that way we don't need to alter the entire development.
Rohm: And I think that echoed throughout the Commission here that we want to see
those before we move forward and even though you're close to coming to some sort of
an agreement with staff, before we make any recommendation onto City Council, we
want to see what you come up with and I don't think that we can -- we don't want to be
in a position to redesign your project and, like Commissioner Borup said, if, in fact, we
sat here and started talking about your private roads and your gates and things such as
that, that that's -- in essence, we would be redesigning your project. So, from our
perspective we think that it's best for you to take it back to staff and work with them with
the comments that you have heard from the Commission tonight and taking those into
consider, come back, and we will continue this to a later hearing and we will act on it at
that time and probably, if I had just one question of you, is how long do you think that it
will take you to come up with an alternative to the current configuration that will meet
staff's expectations and we will just continue this hearing to a date certain that you feel
that you can comply with staff's recommendations.
Phillips: Well, I believe we are close enough that we could turn that around within -- we
could be at your next hearing date, which is, what, two weeks?
Rohm: On the 16th that will -- let me ask staff if they concur with --
Borup: Review time.
Guenther: If we have the materials ten days prior to the hearing, we can, typically, turn
it around. With this type of a development, I -- we have got most of the staff report
already written, it would just be a modification, which doesn't take as much time. I feel
that if the conditions listed in the staff report were redesigned and we could have the
redesign within that ten days time limit, we should be able to do it at the next hearing. If
it goes over the ten days, we have got enough hearing items for the 16th that I wouldn't
recommend it at all.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, interpreting what staff just said, they would have to have final
drawings by next Monday in order to have ten days before the next hearing. So, my
question to both staff and applicant is can you finalize the changes that are being
requested and have it in a final form to staff by Monday?
Phillips: Yes, we can. But what we would like to do is just meet with staff one more
time and -- you know, we look to you as far as if you have any specific, you know,
conditions that you would like to be seen, then, we need to be sure to incorporate those.
With those, we can meet that time frame.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 30 of 90
Rohm: I think the one thing that Commissioner Zaremba brought up is we, as a
Commission, cannot move forward with a gated community, because it's not in
agreement with ordinance and so that, in and of itself, would have to be dropped from
any proposal that comes back to this board until such time that that ordinance changes.
Anyway, that's the way as"! see it.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment on that would be, though, that anticipating that
they are determined enough to have gates that they are going to take the step of
making an application to change the ordinance, they would need to design the roadway
to incorporate the elements, so that if and when they put in a gate, there was a wide
enough space to have a u-turn escape and that the gate would be located far enough
from the arterials and they could design those elements into what we see without the
gates --
Rohm: Fair enough. That's acceptable from my perspective. The gates, as far as this
application, just wouldn't be included. Okay.
Borup: One final comment, I guess, I'd have is -- and I think I feel as strong as anybody
about interconnectivity, except for I can see this as one development where I don't know
that it necessarily applies. You know, the emergency access through a pathway would
take care of any public safety concerns and beyond that I think it's taking away from the
project that they are proposing.
Rohm: Okay. The draft agenda for the 16th already has 17 items on it and I guess that
I'd ask that -- could you give us the next two weeks and move it to April 6th, so I -- I
don't know that we are going to be able to get through the agenda that we already have
set for March 16th. And the value to moving it to April 6th gives you and staff more time
to work out these details and we would have a project that we could move forward more
aggressively at the April 6th meeting. If you can live with that, we'd certainly appreciate
that.
Phillips: Just one moment.
Borup: Well, if not, they have got one day to meet with staff and one day to prepare the
drawings, if they have to have it Monday.
Rohm: Well -- and that's the point.
Borup: That's only two days.
Rohm: That doesn't give them much time for creativity.
Borup: Busy weekend.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 31 of 90
Zaremba: Well, I think the applicant has made the point we are only talking, really,
about redesign of a small southwest portion of this project. The rest of it wouldn't
change just because a stub road needs to go --
Rohm: It's your call.
Phillips: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We would really
prefer a continuance to the next -- the next Public Hearing, at which time, you know, we
would meet the -- I'm certain we can meet the time frame.
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you.
Phillips: All right.
Zaremba: Well -- and the issues are known, so it should be a short discussion when it
comes back. If they comply and work it out with staff it should be easy for us.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to our regularly scheduled
meeting of March 16th, 2006, to give applicant and staff time to work out issues that
have been raised, as well as those already presented in the staff report.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-
060 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56
acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16
acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -
northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126
residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7
commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4,
TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea,
LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 32 of 90
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ. 06-005 and PP 06-004,
solely for the purpose of continuing them to the April 6th, 2006, agenda and--
Moe: Would so move.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 relating to
Knight Sky Estates Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Item 11:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from
RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (7.53 acres) and C-C (4.19 acres) for
Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of
Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential
lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94
acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-C zones for Hightower Subdivision
by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho
Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use
Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse
units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a
vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by
Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho
Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-003, PP 06-003,
and CUP 06-004, all related to Hightower Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing
to that same meeting of April 6, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-003, PP 06-003 and CUP
06-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 33 of 90
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01
acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2
Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone
for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner
of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005,
both relating to Knighthill Center Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Knighthill Center
Subdivision is located at the southwest corner of Chinden Road and North Linder Road,
adjacent to Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Surrounding the site to the south -- to the general
southwest is over 800 homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. And, then, some commercial
lots that were approved along Chinden that are vacant today, but I think there are
applications on a couple of them in the works. With Lochsa Falls there was a private
street -- backage road, if you will, that was approved parallel to Chinden Road that the
applicant would propose to connect to with this application. The plat is for four
commercial building lots and one common lot on ten acres. They propose to annex
from RUT, Ada County, to a C-G, general service and retail commercial zone. I'll kind of
hit on a few highlights in the staff report. Staff has recommended a stub street -- a stub
commercial drive and services to the parcel. I apologize that the presentation tonight
isn't ideal, but to the south of the project, along Linder Road, there is a small parcel with
a home currently on it. We did recommend that a commercial drive aisle and services
be stubbed to that property, so that it could redevelop in the future. By the time that
property gives up its extra right of way and street buffer, it's very small and there is not
much they can do with it, except place one commercial building on it and that would,
then, take access from this drive aisle, eliminating another close access to Linder Road.
So, we did recommend that. We are in support of their proposal to connect to the
private street in Lochsa Falls with the commercial drive aisle that would, then, extend to
the connection with Linder and that would be the access to the site. The building pads
are located -- there is two along Linder with associated parking and, then, there is also
two building -- larger building pads adjacent to the Lochsa Falls commercial lots. Kind
of some general comments that staff had in the staff report deal with parking lot
landscaping and the need for design review. Those are not really part of this
application, I just want to make the applicant aware of those. Those would be
addressed at time of certificate of zoning compliance, which is a staff level approval.
The landscape plan that was submitted did have conifers, which didn't completely
comply with code. Code does require -- and this is something new to the UDC -- is that
conifers can be in a street buffer, as long as they are placed in the middle of a street
buffer that is at least 20 feet wide. So, this street buffer is 35 feet wide and, actually,
wider in places. So, if those conifers were placed in the middle of that buffer they would
comply with the UDC. That was one comment. And, then, we are in support of their
proposed right of way along Chinden. It is consistent with what ITD has requested
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 34 of 90
along this portion of Chinden, which would be one hundred feet from center line. And I
think with that I will end staff's comments and stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Moe: Josh, in your report you speak of ACHD's comments, you talk about a
continuance of this?
Wilson: Yes.
Moe: This hearing.
Wilson: Sorry for skipping over that. That's a rather important topic. ACHD has not
approved this project, so staff's recommendation is that we go ahead and hear it tonight,
get the issues out there and discussed with the Commission, but, then, continue it until
we do have that ACHD approval and I think we are recommending continuing it to April
6th.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 839 East
Winding Creek Drive, Suite 201 in Eagle. And, we are fine with that. I just wanted to
get up and if there was any neighbors or anyone that wanted to talk tonight, let them do
that. I will be very brief. Staff did a good job at summarizing the application request.
We anticipate approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial retail bank institutions
and restaurants and retail and, then, a large -- probably a large grocery store. We did
meet the parking requirements of the code, landscape buffering along both Chinden and
Linder. The main access, again, will be off of Linder Road. A detached sidewalk
system, connection to the Lochsa stub and, then, again, connection to the south to
Lochsa Falls development for interconnectivity. One thing the developer did want to
point out is on the corner of Chinden and Linder the plan is to design that corner and
work with the city -- and I believe the city has a committee that is actually looking at the
gateway corridors and the specific themes that the city has for the area. We are also
working on the project across the street, so that one's also going to have that corner.
So, that corner is going to have a water feature and we will work with the committee on
exactly what the design is going to look at and so at some future date I will bring that
back to show you what that ultimately looks like. This is going to be a nice entrance
way into the City of Meridian. So, the developer wanted to point that out to you. With
that I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Yeah. I'm just kind of curious as far as on the north side right in
the middle, are we anticipating quite dense landscaping and trees in that area, so that
we are somewhat buffering the fact that we got a whole bunch of asphalt parking all the
way through the center of this property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 35 of 90
Nickel: Yes. And we did submit a landscape plan to show that buffering along there
also. You can see the dense plantings here and in that area right here.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. Nickel, am I correct in my understanding that this will
be four separate lots; is that correct?
Nickel: That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nickel: With one common lot for the parking with a cross-access parking agreement.
Zaremba: Where that's leading is a question. I'm a little bit concerned where West
Everest comes actually to the back of the building. That's not going to be very attractive
driving up Everest and to the people here it's not intuitive that there is another escape
besides going out the front driveway and I have one of two suggestions. The first one
was the more extreme and staff can chime in on this, too. Would it be possible to move
this building farther south and change the drive aisle from being on the south end of the
building to going between the buildings and pretty much align with Everest. Is that a
possibility?
Nickel: I would have to check with the architect. One concern I would have is there is
the residential lots, Lochsa here --
Zaremba: Oh, that's right.
Nickel: -- and trying to get that large building -- to encroach on that I would have
concerns. I kind of envision this -- and I don't know if this is good or bad, that kind of
decision, but like behind on Eagle, Crossroads, kind of behind the Old Navy and all how
that connects back to the south. So, I -- I don't think that's very practical to move that
building --
Zaremba: Also, you make a good point about it being closer to the residences. So, my
second suggestion was much less extreme --
Nickel: Okay.
Zaremba: -- and that is could there be signage in this area directing people that there is
another exit?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 36 of 90
Nickel: I believe we could do something like that. I'll look into that and, then, at the -- I
guess April 6th meeting I'll address that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, I wasn't clear if -- is that access to the south there, the
access, that isn't the access requested by staff to the -- that property?
Nickel: No. There is an out parcel -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Huckabay, there
is an out parcel right here and I think staffs wanting an access internally in that area
and we are fine with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Nickel: Yeah. We will provide that. Let's see. Right there.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and staff, this may be off the wall, but that does look like a
small parcel for development. Would that be a good size or shape for the fire
department to put a facility there? Mr. Cole appears to have an answer for that.
Cole: If you follow down further south to that cul-de-sac, that parcel is about twice the
size as the one you're looking at, is, actually, a new fire department location right there.
Zaremba: I thought there was going to be one out there somewhere. Okay. Thank
you.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn.
Nickel: Thank you.
Rohm: There is nobody signed up to testify to this, but at this point in time I open it up
to public testimony. Yeah. And is there anybody that would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none, discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 37 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: I am curious on the lots to the west -- to the north of the private
street, are we still envisioning that those are going to be businesses as well? And those
are going to front on the private street or --
Wilson: They will take access from that private road, that Everest.
Newton-Huckabay: And the front of the building will be on --
Wilson: Yeah. I mean they will be designed -- they will have to be, because of the
design review standards, they will have an attractive appearance to Chinden, but I think
they really would orientate toward that private street.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess --
Zaremba: The doors would have to be.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Where I'm going with that, I'm wondering if -- I don't think
you're going to get the same effect as you're getting with the -- the back side of the
Crossroads development, because that, in essence, at some point will be acting as an
approach -- front approach on there and I might suggest that we consider that in design
of the buildings on the west side of that property, that I think it's going to look odd to
have the back of the store front at the end of a row of commercial buildings fronting onto
that private road.
Rohm: Your concern is with the -- these buildings --
Newton-Huckabay: This is the back of this set of businesses here. This road here -- all
these businesses that are going to be put in right here are going to front and face to the
south and I'm guessing that's about the half mile down there where that private road
starts, so at some point you're likely going to see a light, I would guess, and so this is
going to become a fairly I would say more of a major intersection -- or road than it is
now and you're going to be driving down this and you're going to be looking at the back
of the grocery store, the way this project was designed now. Which I mean I
understand it should front onto Linder and that's fine, but I don't think that you get the
same effect when you go to Crossroads, you are truly at the back of a development that
backs up completely against residents, where this is actually going to be, in essence,
facing to public street -- public or not, I mean it's going to be a public street -- the public
is going to use it.
Borup: The street is actually right here.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Borup: So, I don't know if this parking is going to have access to the back or not, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 38 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my point still stands, you're going to be driving down here
looking at the back of a concrete building and I would think that at the very least we
should look for some kind of architectural relief, such as we asked for with the Kohl's
development on there.
Rohm: Okay. And, thank you, that's a good point. Shawn, would you like to --
Nickel: If you're referring to this area right here, yes, I believe that will have an
architectural relief. Keep in mind that because this is intended as a grocery store, this is
most likely going to be loading -- loading bays and things like that.
Newton-Huckabay: That's exactly what I have in mind.
Nickel: Well, I think it's more appropriate to have it next to the office, than to have it
down encroaching into the end of the residential for reasons that we all know that --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, yes, and I would agree -- I would agree with that.
Nickel: Definitely here you will have some architectural relief. I don't know if you'd like
to give some suggestions. I don't know how to address -- I know what you're saying.
And I don't know if that should be left up to design review for recommended to the
design review or at that point of the review.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean I think I have been perfectly clear in the past that I'm
not an architect, so I don't feel comfortable saying I would like to see this particular
architectural design, but I do think that -- that you could probably come up with
something that would keep in mind that it's visually appealing when you're driving up
from it at that point.
Nickel: Yeah. Because we don't have an end user in mind right now.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. I would think that that --
Nickel: I will agree with you and I think we can -- we can --
Newton-Huckabay: I mean I would go so far as to -- I would think that you could enter
on the west side of -- particularly the south, that you could have -- you could have
businesses on the west and east I mean at some point on the south -- the part that's
labeled retail. I mean, in essence, you are going to front on two public roadways.
Nickel: Well, technically, the one's a private, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Well--
Nickel: -- I know what you're saying. There will be -- there is a light currently down
here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 39 of 90
Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a comment to staff. Josh, would this not come back in a CUP
as far as the buildings themselves?
Wilson: No. This is a C-G zone. They would be allowed uses. It would be all staff
level after this.
Moe: Good point. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the end of my comments. That's my only concern. Thanks.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I did have one other question and maybe I should have
caught Mr. Nickel while he was still here. But, actually, it's for staff. No, I need you to
listen, though. Stay here. In the new UDC did we put in the requirement that all
property similar to this automatically have to have cross-access agreements? I notice
that we are not asking for that in the staff report as often and I think the answer was it's
already required. I see some heads shaking.
Wilson: It's not in the UDC that we are aware of. They have proposed cross-access
agreements for the development, so --
Zaremba: Okay. I didn't see that as a requirement. So, my question for Mr. Nickel
would be -- although the answer I think has already been given -- you're comfortable
with cross-access agreements among all of your lots in here?
Nickel: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Could you state that in the microphone, please.
Nickel: Yes, we would agree with that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Shawn, would you sit down. Okay. With that being said, I would entertain a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Mae: No.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, due to the absence of the ACHD report --
Rohm: Oh, continue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 40 of 90
Zaremba: -- we wish to continue.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: And was the date April 6th? Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-
006 and PP 06-005 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing AZ 06-006 and PP
06-005 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Well, we have reached that 9:00 o'clock hour and we traditionally take about a
15 break here and we will reconvene at 9: 15.
(Recess.)
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43
acres from RUT to L-Q (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima
Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC - 3015 South Meridian
Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for March 2nd,
2006, and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002 and begin with the staff
report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Strada Bellissima
Outparcel, as it has been termed, is an annexation of .43 acres from RUT to the L-O
zone. It is located on -- pretty much on the northwest corner of South Meridian Road,
State Highway 69 and Victory Road in south Meridian. When -- if I'm correct, when
Strada Bellissima came through, the owners did not have control of this parcel and,
therefore, it was left out of the development. They have since gained control and would
like to incorporate this parcel into their office development. It's a fairly straight forward
application that staff supports. We do have a conceptual site plan. This parcel ends up
being pretty much a parking lot. You can see the outline of the parcel here and it is
incorporated into the overall project that was proposed previously. No accesses to
Victory Road are proposed. We did include a requirement for a DA, specifically to
prohibit direct access to Victory Road, wanted to keep it to those internal roadways that
have been established. On that DA there was a condition included that should not have
been. It was a copy error from another report and that is the second to the last bullet,
which says prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be
- ~,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 41 of 90
subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. Staff
would recommend that that be stricken and the only non-standard condition in that
development agreement be the last bullet, which says no direct lot access to Victory
Road shall be allowed. I think with that I will stand for any questions from the
Commission.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Done.
Rohm: No questions of staff. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Hobbs: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Chris Hobbs with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552
West Executive. I have no details to add, unless you have any questions.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Do you agree with the staff comments?
Hobbs: Yes, we do agree.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Seems pretty straight forward. Any other -- any discussion?
Borup: Any public testimony?
Rohm: There is nobody signed up, but would anybody like to come forward and testify
to this application? Seeing none.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002.
All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 42 of 90
Moe: I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 06-002 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, with the following
change.
Borup: Bullet point five on page five.
Moe: On what page?
Borup: Page five.
Newton-Huckabay: Page five.
Wilson: It would, actually, be in Exhibit B is where the --
Moe: Okay. Prior to -- yes. Under the -- on page five, under the second to the last
bullet point, where it starts out prior to issuance of any building permits, I would like that
item stricken. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-002 to include the staff report with the one modification. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional
Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block
28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No.9 by Brighton Development - west of North Locust
Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road:
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on CUP 06-005 related to the Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.9. And
begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This will be very
quick. As you can see, Quenzer Commons Number 9 is located in Quenzer Commons
Subdivision, it's all internal to the subdivision. With that this is a use request to change
the planned development. These lots are existing and the applicant is requesting to
eliminate the zero lot line setbacks for the garages as shown in the site plan. Staff
supports this. They have redesigned some of the turning radiuses in these alleys in
order to accommodate fire department requests. As you can see, there is an alley, the
alley connection is here and I believe there is one there. With this the applicant has
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 43 of 90
submitted a vacation that will go to the City Council consecutive with this application
and -- or immediately following this application. Staff is recommending approval and
you should have Findings for the same.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one clarification. We are talking about side setbacks.
Wilson: Just the side setbacks and the applicant is showing just the garages being
attached.
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, Mr. Chairman, I do have one question for Mr. Cole. In the
Public Works section, issues or concerns, vacation must be completed. What vacation
is that? Is that the standard utility easement that happens whenever there is a property
line?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, when this was originally platted they
platted the -- I don't believe they had a utility easement on this plat, but they had the
drainage and irrigation easement along the interior lot lines, so in order to attach the
garages they would have to vacate -- vacate the easements, so they wouldn't be
building over them. And as Joe mentioned earlier, they have submitted an application
for that. It's being routed through the system now.
Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. I heard the application, but that clarifies what it was for.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, David Turnbull, 12601 West
Explorer Drive, Boise. We concur with staff's analysis and would appreciate your
favorable consideration of this application. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Dave. Any questions? Okay. There is nobody else signed up for
this, but if somebody would like to come forward and testify on this application, now is
the time.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing for CUP 06-005 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-005. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 44 of 90
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number CUP 06-005 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan, with
no modifications to the condition of approval and ask staff to prepare Facts and
Findings.
Moe: Second.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, staff has prepared the Findings. They were attached with this
application.
Zaremba: I added that, because I thought it was a legal requirement that it show up on
our Consent Agenda next meeting.
Guenther: No. What -- if you look at your staff report, all your Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law will reference the Commission findings, which means that tonight
you're finding --
Zaremba: I did notice that. Okay.
Guenther: So, therefore, tonight if you guys motion and approve, it's approved and
done tonight. Staff made that change in order to help speed the applicant process up
two weeks.
Zaremba: Perfect. Let me restate the motion, then. I'll start over. I move to approve
file number CUP 06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2,
2006, with the attached site plan. Period.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-005. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175
single-family residential building lots and 12 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:
. ~.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 45 of 90
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single family detached residential units and
single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile
Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and
CUP 05-039, all related to Irvine Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I did include a
history section for this one, which does reference that this application was originally
heard under the old Meridian city code and it had a planned development application for
a Conditional Use Permit, 05-039, that has been withdrawn at the applicant's request as
per the City Council had this reviewed as for the Unified Development Code standards.
With that the applicant has made revisions to the site plan. It's 38.5 acres of land and
the request is for 175 single family residential lots, with all detached products. The
original application was for a type MEW development with certain attached products, as
well as alley-loaded products. The residential density has been reduced from I believe
5.61 to -- or 5.19 to 4.61 dwelling units to the acre. And the applicant has redesigned
this in order to meet the minimum standards of the Unified Development Code for
amenities, open space, and the only outstanding issue would be the right of way width
along Chinden Road. I'm going to bring up a really poor -- I wish we had our
presentation for this. The right of way width along here, this is a 90 foot wide section
closer to Ten Mile Road where Chinden necks down. The applicant is providing a 70
foot wide road section in that easterly direction from approximately 500 feet out. The
section in here, if you will reference the ITD letter, does comply with the -- the request
for a hundred feet -- a hundred foot of roadway section, because the public pathway
that the applicant will provide is in a pedestrian easement to lTD. So, essentially, the
road section that is in there is an 88 foot wide road section. However, this section here
does not comply with the second portion of that. This complies with the intersection
road width and this does not comply with the adjacent residential road width as detailed
by lTD. There is a condition of approval in this staff report that says that the applicant
shall work with ITD to determine right of way width. When it comes to ITD, our staff
would like to see everything in writing. So, until such time as that is -- that condition has
been satisfied by ITD's requirements, this could potentially be redrawn if ITD does not
withdraw that letter that -- it's the last one dated from October 2005. Other significant
changes to the site plan, obviously, you see that it's in a much more block format,
instead of the open MEW type of development and there is a stub street provided here
to the Stevenson property as requested by, I believe, Mr. Stevenson and consented by
the City Council. With that there is still the lateral coming across here where the open
space lots are including that lateral. The applicant has indicated to staff that they can
redesign these in order to be qualified open space and meet the minimum of five
percent. The staff report does have some details in it that would need to be addressed.
The Unified Development Code has limitations on qualified open spaces and if this is
designed as a parkway in that location, then, it would be a hundred percent qualified,
instead of reduced to 50 percent, as well as the open space in the -- the main open
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 46 of 90
space lot. We do withdraw parking lot square footage with this request -- or with these -
- under the Unified Development Code and this application does show a parking lot in
that open space and, therefore, it reduced the required open space to less than five
percent. Staff is recommending approval of this, but there are certain things that do
need to be address as conditioned. I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Joe, in regards to the property itself at the present time, I do note that it is zoned
an R-2, is that correct, at the present time?
Guenther: No. This is zoned in RUT.
Moe: Okay. I'm sorry. In the Comprehensive Plan it's noted a portion of that to be an
R-2, is it not? And we were -- I was wondering the other day whether or not that's part
of the change that's coming with the Comp Plan?
Guenther: Oh, you're talking about the low density residential?
Moe: That's correct.
Guenther: Okay. Currently, this is a low density residential comprehensive designation.
The applicant's original request was for the bump up in density, as allowed for by the
Comprehensive Plan. The north Meridian area map amendment -- or comprehensive
map amendment does have this property shown as medium density residential. So, it
does -- it does come across as a -- and here Craig put it up. It's this parcel right here,
which is shown as medium density residential with gateway corridors.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Kevin
Amar. My address is 2364 South Titanium in Meridian. This is a -- I guess this is a
unique process that we are going through on this one. Staff had indicated -- and it was
correct, we did withdraw our previous application and we have requested redesign, but
not because we wanted to. We got to -- with this project, in particular, and if you
remember our previous project on this one, it had a variety of lot sizes and types and we
were pretty excited about it, but we weren't -- the City Council and they weren't excited
about it at all. So, they asked us to come back, redesign it with more of the R-8
standards, with fewer lots, more typical lots and so we are here before you today and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 47 of 90
that's why -- that's why we are here. And as I stated, we did withdraw that application,
but not at our own desire. So, we are before you this evening requesting a
recommendation for approval on this subdivision. It is 175 residential lots. They do all
conform with the R-8 standards. We are -- as we did in the previous application, we still
have a pool, we still have open space, we still are trying to maintain a lot of those
amenities that we had within the last one. We have pathways that go through the
project. We have pathways that connect to the city park to the south that is currently
under development. So, although it's a different project, it's certainly a very pleasing
project and it's very consistent with what is approved in the immediate area, being Silver
Leaf and Kelly Creek and the projects in that area. So, that being said, we have
reviewed with staff some of the changes we need to make with the open space under
the Uniform Development Code. We didn't -- there was just some tweaks that we need
to make to that. We can certainly accommodate any of the open space requirement
and not have an issue with those. The other question that staff had was with respect to
the ITD and we are working with them to determine the appropriate right of way width.
The intersection is certainly not a question. We have -- we have met their requirements
in that intersection. The question that we are in discussions with them now is on the
balance and that has to do with the property to the east of this, that being Silver Leaf
and Lochsa, already maintains a 70 foot wide right of way along there. So, this to be
consistent in that area -- and it's the same as was heard previous. So, we haven't
changed our right of way from what you recommended approval on on the last time.
So, we are -- we will still be aware and still work with ITD and are sure we can come to
a reasonable solution for that. With this project we have changed a couple of the items
and one was with respect to the out parcel. Previously this road came down and there
was a knuckle and, then, turned. This stub road did not exist. Jerry Stevenson, who is
the property owner at this location and who is here this evening, at -- I believe it was
City Council, requested that he have easier access to sewer and to water. We agreed
to put in that stub at this location and still maintain that. And the other thing in meeting
with him, that his -- he was talking today would be to provide a fence and a berm on that
location to maintain drainage on our own property, so there is no way that drainage can
get onto his property. The entire property will be fenced with a vinyl fence, with the
exception of along ITD's right of way and that will have to be stone or stucco per your --
per your current code and we fully intend on meeting all those requirements. We do
know we have got this parking lot area and I was unaware that a parking lot for a pool
didn't count for open space. I thought it would, but we will revise that and make that
happen. And, then, as you look at the project, there is a variety of lot sizes, the smallest
being up to the north buffering ITD's right of way, buffering Highway 20-26 or Chinden,
still maintaining a minimum of 5,000 square feet. And, then, as you get to the south all
of these lots become larger and certainly much more compatible with the Silver Leaf
project and the projects around. So, with that we appreciate your time and I would
stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Kevin.
Moe: Mr. Amar, you hit right on the subject I wanted to talk to you about and that's the
size of your lots over there on the east side over there. Basically, that's noted to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 48 of gO
some R-4 in there, so transitionwise, with a 6,000 square foot lot in there, we are really
not having too much to transition through there.
Amar: All of these lots, which is part of Silver Leaf, are also the similar size, the R-8. It
was an R-4 zoning, but with a PUD, so the density in both of them are the same.
Moe: They are all right.
Amar: Correct. So, the zoning designation may throw you off a little bit, but the size of
the lots is consistent and we are not under any -- I think penalty of death if we get to
City Council. We are not doing PUDs anymore. So, we are trying to be consistent with
your Unified Development Code and we have met that -- we have met those
requirements. We also met with Mike Meyers again -- in fact, I met with him on
Monday. We have stubbed our road at this location to his property. He had some
questions as far as where he actually wanted that road stub to be and so that may move
in that block and in talking to staff they didn't seem to have a problem with that and that
will be mostly at his request. He have some different things that he envisions in his
property in the future and we would be more than happy to accommodate them. And,
again, that -- and this property line will be fenced also. Commissioner Moe, hopefully, I
-- I think that was a long answer.
Moe: Yes, you did.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amaze everybody and say I have no questions.
Amar: Yet.
Rohm: And let me go on record that that's a first.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one comment. I liked the other development
better. I thought that was a great development and I hope that you get the opportunity
to put something like that together, because that one did stand in my mind as something
that I was looking forward to seeing you guys put together.
Amar: I haven't gone away from that idea, I'm just going to wait for a few years, I think,
and, then, try it again, because I liked it better, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think it was a good concept and I would -- I think it has a
place, so I would -- I do look forward to you getting opportunity to put one of those
together.
Amar: Hopefully some day. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Amar, thank you.
.,,-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 49 of 90
Amar: Thank you.
Rohm: At this time would Jerry Stevenson like to come forward, please.
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road. Fellow Commissioners, as
you can see, my property is in there. It's been kind of a moving target trying to keep up
with this project with all the changes, but, you know, for the most part my biggest
concern, too, was -- as far as having access to sewer and water, because, as I stated
during the City Council, was that, basically, I was getting land locked if something wasn't
done, because there was no plans of extending the sewer anywhere's past at Silver
Leaf. However, I do think it needs to be notated on the plans, because it's not actually
on the site plan to stub, whether it was overlooked or whatever, I mean the street has
no value to me coming up to that side, but particularly the city services. And, then, also
the other -- my other biggest concern, too, is -- you know, I just feel trapped in that area
right there, because everything -- my view and everything is going to be going away and
all I have got to do now is look up at two story homes and it's the size of these lots are
the ones -- is kind of my issue, because what happens is typically when you get these
builders coming in and these are going to be basically Corey Barton type homes and
there is -- they put these big homes on these small lots and so, basically, there is not a
lot of front yard, back yard, you know, the footprint of the homes are -- you know, they
meet the guidelines, but with R-4 and R-8, I mean right now you're already looking at,
you know, ten feet if it's, you know, R-4 and R-8 is two feet less and that doesn't count
the eaves and everything, so you're basically, you know, as far as I'm concerned, these
just as well just be a solid wall of homes. So, there is no cracks in any of those sites
there for me to see the mountains and everything that's kind of my -- I guess maybe
that's a personal thing, but what I had requested from Kevin, too, is I would like to at
least see some type of a buffer with landscaping between his development, some trees
put up on the outside, so instead of me looking up into some body's bedroom, I can at
least look up at trees and feel a little more, you know, at ease. So, that's, you know,
one of my concerns, my request, and, you know, there is a few others, but they are
probably not of any concern to you guys, so -- I would rather see an R-4 density versus
R-8 and, you know, back in, I guess, the good old days, I always thought low density
was R-4 and R-8 was medium density and it was kind of a shock when this whole thing
started that R-8 now is all of a sudden considered low density. So, that to me is just
stacking houses on top of each other and it's more of a medium density in my mind, but
that's my perception. Thank you. Questions?
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none, discussion?
Zaremba: Mr. Amar may care to respond to some of those issues, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Mr. Amar.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 50 of 90
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a response, we did meet with Mr. Stevenson and
we have agreed to put up a berm, any landscaping or things of that nature that will be
required through CC&Rs, but will not be done at the time of the subdivision as far as
adjacent to his lot. But we will be putting up a berm to maintain any water flow from
entering his property. We understand he has some Iambs and sheep and needs to
protect those and rightfully so. And also any fencing and I believe we can work together
on that.
Rohm: Is there anything that you can do to validate that the city services will be
available to --
Amar: Make it a condition. It's just -- I think it got missed on the preliminary plat, a line
being drawn, but there will be sewer and water stubs to his property.
Guenther: Chairman Rohm, it is a Public Works condition of approval for to and
through.
Rohm: Okay.
Amar: No problem with that.
Rohm: Okay.
Amar: That's all.
Rohm: Thank you. Any discussion before we close these public hearings?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that it's very similar at least to a project that
we previously recommended approval of. The applicant was given some changes to
make by City Council and I believe those have been made. I see no reason not to
recommend approval.
Rohm: I think you're right on with that.
Zaremba: I don't see anybody else objecting, so, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the
Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038,
PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 51 of 90
Rohm: And before -- before somebody makes a motion to move this forward, the CUP
05-039 has been withdrawn, so we don't have to make a motion on that, just -- it will be
just the -- the zoning and preliminary plat. So, whoever wants to make a motion would -
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the first motion.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I recommend we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038 and PP 05-
037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, preliminary
plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88
acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence
Development Group, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and east of
North Meridian Road:
Item 21:
Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 255
single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude
Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - south of East
McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-007 and PP 06-
006, both relating to Solitude Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Solitude
Subdivision is located along McMillan and Meridian Roads. Point of clarification. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 52 of 90
guess the design shows the Lemp Canal on the south side of McMillan. The Lemp
Canal is on the north side of McMillan. And the Starkey Lateral, I believe, is -- has
already been tiled on the southern portion here. So, there is some reference to those
items that I just want to make sure that you realize that they have already been
addressed or they are off site. With this, this is an annexation request of 59.88 acres
from RUT to R-8 and it is also a request for 225 single family residential lots and nine
common lots. With that, the applicant has designed it with a central open space, which
is kind of the helmet-looking feature in the middle of this design, and there are -- is a
collector road system to McMillan Road. As well as a smaller one to Meridian Road.
So, the applicant has been very consistent with ACHD's standard conditions of approval
to hook up to all the stub streets in adjacent subdivisions. As you will have seen,
ACHD's staff report is not present with this application. However, staff does not see any
need to have the conditions of approval be included with the recommendation to the
City Council, staff would like to see the official conditions of approval prior to City
Council meeting, but the applicant has provided two stub streets to the only parcel and
is hooking up at locations for stub streets and limited their access points to arterial
roads, so they have met all the standards that we would anticipate them meeting. So,
staff is comfortable that this applicant will meet ACHD's conditions of approval when
they are available. With that, staff's request has been to bring forward a minor design
change to break up these middle lots in this location and provide a pedestrian
connection from the north-south direction. This is Amber Creek Subdivision in the
southwest corner of Meridian and McMillan and they have also done the same type of a
design where the pedestrian connection comes from their open space lot, which is
square, to the southern portion of their property in order to facilitate pedestrian
connection to their main open space features. I guess this one is a little oriented -- I'll
ask the applicant to get better detail. She has a color drawing. But you can see they
have provided the pedestrian connection as city staff has requested. The staff is in
support of this application and has provided Findings for approval. I will stand for
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Just a question on the out parcel. Was that originally all one
parcel under same ownership?
Guenther: I believe it was or at least they were common ownership at one point. Mr.
Starkey is -- was the original owner for the entire parcel. They did have two deeds for
these parcels when we -- when they approached the City of Meridian. While you
brought up that point, the applicant is working with this out parcel in order to provide an
off-site concession to the city in order to provide the sidewalk connection from here to
here, as immediately north of this site is the -- I believe it's a middle school. So, they
are working on providing a pedestrian easement for the connection of the sidewalk.
Borup: And that was one of the concerns I had. And we have had others that we have
recommended denial because of out parcels, the concern being, you know, the future.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 53 of 90
Guenther: The applicant indicated to me earlier that they are meeting on Tuesday in
order to better clarify that situation. So, staff feels that it should be addressed fully prior
to City Council hearing. And the last thing is with that sidewalk connection, similar to
Amber Creek, the City Council did require the applicant in the first phase, in order to
provide all of the landscaping around the perimeter of these arterial roads, that is not in
the staff report, but in meetings through the day staff would recommend that the same
condition of approval be transferred -- the same condition from Amber Creek to this
application, where the landscaping and sidewalks would be provided with the first phase
of the development.
Rohm: Very good. Thank you. Any other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on that last subject, does that include sidewalk across the out
parcel?
Guenther: Yes, that would.
Zaremba: I didn't quite catch that. Thanks.
Rohm: You're on.
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle.
I'm representing Providence Development on this particular application. First of all, to
answer Commissioner Borup's question concerning the out parcel, this property was
bought in excess of I believe five years ago by Steiner Development. It was owned by
Mr. Starkey, who does reside in the existing home. They did a one-time split. I think
that was done with W.H. Pacific, so Mr. Starkey could retain his home and barn and it's
just very immaculate. In working on this design, I did meet with the staff concerning Mr.
Starkey's property and how best to provide future access or possibility of
redevelopment. He is an elderly gentleman. The locations of both of those stub streets
were -- were what laid out the best for redevelopment of that portion and not necessarily
what worked out best for this parcel. So, I did take that into consideration. This parcel
had some -- some hurdles that we had to get over as far as the stub streets. As you
well know, the stub street locations kind of dictate what we do as far as our designs are
concerned. When I did Copper Basin I stubbed three stub streets to the west to this
parcel, probably could have got away with just two, but I did three. I'm not sure why.
And so, then, that kind of dictated how we brought these -- those stubs in and, then,
interconnected here. We have a stub street to the south of us, Burney Glen, that we are
connecting to and pulling into this site, so we have got multiple points of ingress and
egress. We brought in Amber Creek's access to make sure that we have got adequate
offset from our primary intersection here at Meridian Road. Based on our traffic study,
the intersection of McMillan and Meridian Road operates at a level of service B. After
build out it will still operate at a level of service B. We will have to have a left turn at our
entrance here on Meridian Road and one on McMillan. As far as services are
concerned, there is -- the sewer is located here at our southwest corner. We will be
extending the sewer trunk through the parcel and, then, taking it over to Havasu Falls
--~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 54 of gO
Street, which is this northerly stub street there you see at Copper Basin and taking
offline their temporary lift station. There is also existing 16 inch water in Meridian Road,
12 inch water along all of our frontage in McMillan. So, all services are available to this
property. It's kind of very similar to an in-fill. We have got 40 feet of landscaping along
our Meridian Road and McMillan corridor. We are dedicating additional right of way, I
think 23 feet on Meridian Road, 13 feet on McMillan. We don't have any conflict with
the middle school that will be north of us, because all their access will come off of
Meridian Road and I did check with their architects to confirm that. In working with this
design I came in with a non-continuous collector, brought it in with islands along,
landscaping along the perimeter of it, coming in here to this central common area there.
That common area, I think, is about a little over two acres in size. It is 2.74 acres to be
exact. So, it's a pretty large, nice common area. That's what you'll see, that open
space corridor as you come into the project. If you enter off Meridian Road, I went with
more of a linear open space that's open all the way through those lots, so you will see
that clear vision as you come in through -- off the Meridian Road entrance. And that
particular area is about one and a half acres. The lot sizes in this varied. We tried to
provide, you know, some variation in sizes and product. We have got lot sizes that are
around 5,500 square feet and, then, they go all the way up to I think 14,000 some odd
square feet. Lot size is 7,244 square feet. We have approximately 12.41 percent open
space, which I think that's a good open space. Nice perimeter buffers. I think this is a
real clean project. We have provided good pedestrian connections. The staff asked for
some additional pathways. We did add those. They wanted the ability for -- for the
peds to come through these blocks, get to this linear open space here, and come up
into the primary common area located there. We have got a block here that's a longer
block; we have got a cut-through ped path through the middle of that one. There will be
an elementary school that will be constructed in Cooper Basin. I have lined this
pedestrian pathway up with the common lot. I had it at Copper Basin, therefore,
facilitating the kids walking through that ped path and going directly east to the school.
We are asking for R-8 zoning designation, just for the straight preliminary plat. It's R-8
in Burney Glen, R-4 in Copper Basin. You just approved R-8 here in Amber Creek to
the west of us. As far as lot transitioning, I did take a look at the lots in Copper Basin.
Those ones along that perimeter range from 80 to 85 feet in width and 115 to 120 feet in
width. And so our lots along that corridor range from eight to ten thousand square feet,
roughly. I also looked at the lots at Burney Glen. They are not as deep. They are like
about 80 by 108, some are 70 by 100, and I made it consistent on the south boundary
where those were eight, nine, and ten thousand square feet. So, the smaller lots that
we have got are primarily up along that McMillan corridor and, then, they get larger as
you enter into the subdivision and, then, obviously, maintaining around that perimeter.
We think this is a good project with the 3.8 dwelling units per acre as our gross density.
It's medium density three to eight, so we are on that low range. Amber Creek across
the street was at 4.95, so they are denser than what we propose here. I talked with
ACHD. Lori is working on our staff report. They have lost a couple of employees and
so they are short-staffed at this time and trying to handle a heavy load. In the
conversation I had with Lori, she said she believes that this will be a staff level
application, because, basically, with a level of service B, the fact that we are hooking
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 55 of 90
into existing stub streets and our traffic study did not find anything out of the ordinary,
everything is in compliance with the ACHD policy manual. Do you have any questions?
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Becky, I noted that in your response letter that you are asking not
to have to do anything for some road calming.
McKay: Oh, the traffic calming?
Moe: Yes.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we are seeing that comment in a lot of the
staff reports from the police department. If we have -- it seems like two points of ingress
and egress between two arterials, regardless of the route, we are seeing that. I mean
even on our continuous collectors we are seeing that they want traffic calming. I mean
we have got a circuitous route in this design. We are not creating an easy loop through.
We are using collectors. Therefore, from a transportation perspective no one else has
voiced the same concern. But the police department -- it seems to be on all the
applications. So, you know, just -- we didn't feel it was applicable.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Becky, any concerns about the sidewalk through the out parcel
along Meridian Road?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, after the Amber Creek application I made
it quite clear to my clients that that would be an issue with the Council, because it was
discussed in length here just a few weeks ago with Amber Creek. They have met with
Mr. Starkey, talked to him one time. He is elderly; he is in very poor health. They have
a meeting next Tuesday and I guess one of his concerns was he has some very large
mature trees and he did not want those cut down. So, with sidewalk we can, obviously,
meander around trees to save them. As far as like dedicating additional right of way for
ACHD, he may not do that. But they believe that they can get him to grant a sidewalk
easement.
Borup: And so you're comfortable with the sidewalk as a condition?
McKay: If -- I think Amber Creek -- the Council gave them the option if they could not
obtain a sidewalk easement, then, they would need to go within the existing right of way
and provide some type of pedestrian barrier, temporary pedestrian access through that
noncontinuous part there. So, the gap between the two. Their situation is more difficult
than ours, because they have the Settler's Canal, because it's coming across -- it's on
the north side of McMillan and, then, drops into the south side, so not only are they
fighting the canal and edge of pavement and borrow ditch and trying to find enough
room -- we don't have that situation here.
Borup: And I don't think we are asking for the right of way. And the other thing that is
different in my mind is at one time this was all under one ownership, too.
- ,~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 56 of 90
McKay: Yes, sir.
Borup: Even though it was five years ago.
McKay: Yeah. But the county does allow the one time splits, if they --
Borup: Right.
McKay: -- if they kept the five acres. Yes. One other point I'd like to make is my clients
have been working with Meridian School District, ACHD, and Mr. Turnbull at trying to
partner up to improve this intersection to get it built out and signalized prior to that
school opening. So, they have -- they have stepped forward to try to help facilitate that.
Rohm: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. McKay, I'm trying to find where it was. The Public Works
Department had a concern that the conceptual sewer plans do not allow for taking the
Cooper Basin lift station off line. You mentioned something about that. Have you
solved that problem?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. Yes, sir. With an eight inch -- running
an eight inch line over there, we could not intercept that manhole where it comes out of
the lift station at the elevation to take it off line, but running a 12 inch line, I think at .22
percent, we could come in and we had a couple feet to spare. We did rerun our sewer
inverts. We e-mailed it to Mike and I believe he concurred with the finding. So, that has
been solved, sir. Yes.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Mr. Cole.
Cole: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Zaremba. They did a-mail over an AutoCAD
drawing showing the revised elevations, inverts, and profiles and it, indeed, does allow
for the -- that lift station to be taken off line. We received it just a hair late to incorporate
that in the staff report. However, Mrs. McKay has -- is correct, the profile she has
shown will take that offline.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. We don't have anybody
signed up to testify, but at this time you're welcome to come forward. Seeing none --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, is it my turn?
Zaremba: Uh-huh. We are all looking at you.
Moe: Go right ahead.
..~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 57 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007
and PP 06-006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007
and PP 06-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-
007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd,
2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval. Would it be appropriate just to
incorporate the applicant's response letter?
Rohm: I think that's very appropriate. Yes, you can add that.
Newton-Huckabay: I mean as -- or do I need to actually make a modification to the --
Guenther: Did you feel comfortable with not requiring the traffic calming in the police
report?
Newton-Huckabay: I can only speak -- yes, I did.
Guenther: And is that your motion?
Borup: Put it in your motion. How about the sidewalks in front of the out parcel?
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: My comment on that, if we are discussing before the motion is finished, is
that some of the traffic calming devices are circuitous -- can't even say it. Circuitous
routes, which this has. Traffic islands, which this has. And my feeling is that
requirement is satisfied, not ignored.
Guenther: If the Commission feels that their -- that the comment is satisfied and not
ignored, then, staff would not have a problem incorporating the applicant's letter into
your motion, the changes in that letter. And, then, the one change for incorporating the
condition of approval from Amber Creek into this one, too, for the perimeter landscaping
would be --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's -- I'm going to withdraw my second motion and just
tally up my -- our additions. So, we are all in favor -- all agree with the applicant's
response letter to the staff report?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 58 of 90
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And I have on page -- Exhibit B, item 1.2.1, will read: Sidewalk
shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision,
pursuant UDC, et cetera, including sidewalk along the Meridian Road in front of the out
parcel. Is that good enough terminology?
Guenther: You should also just indicate that it was offered as an off-site improvement
by the applicant.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I mean I don't -- do we -- and I'll just state that we -- 4.1?
Okay. Exhibit B, number four, just state the Commission feels that condition has been
met.
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay.
Rohm: Would you start over.
Newton-Huckabay: I will start over. Excuse me. Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council
of file numbers AZ 06-007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of March 2nd, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th,
2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. First, the
Commission would incorporate the comments from the applicant in their letter dated
February 27th in response to the staff report. We have no disagreement with that. And,
then, Exhibit B, Item 1.2.1 will be changed to read: Sidewalk shall be installed within
the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17, and
will include the sidewalk offered as an off-site improvement by the applicant along the
Meridian Road in front of the out parcel. End of that statement. And, then, under the
police department's conditions, still in Exhibit B, number four, bullet one, the
Commission does feel like that the applicant has met the traffic calming needs put forth
by the police department condition. So, we don't think anything else needs to be done
there. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006, to include staff comments and the response
letter provided by Engineering Solutions and a couple of modifications made by the
Commissioner. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 59 of 90
Rohm: I think we are done with that one. We have one left. Thank you, everybody. I
wonder if we should have commented on if, in fact, an easement could be obtained for
the sidewalk in the motion, as opposed to -- because it -- if they couldn't get an
easement for the sidewalk, then, Becky has proposed something that would --
Borup: That can be handled when that's developed and the right of ways given and
stuff, isn't it?
Rohm: I don't know. It's more of a question than anything else.
Borup: I think it's just important to have something to walk on.
Rohm: If that out parcel -- if they won't grant a sidewalk easement, then, it will have to
be --
Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, since the anticipation, I
guess, of the applicant in her testimony was that they thought they could get that
worked out between now and the Council hearing, since the Council is going to have to
hear it anyway, I think they could probably address it there. If it hasn't happened or isn't
going to happen, they can do it then.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15
(79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree
Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides
of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision:
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the last Public
Hearing on AZ 06-004 and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on your
agenda this evening is just a small little 358 acre annexation, requesting several zones,
an R-2, which is the two low density residential, 66 acres; an R-8 medium density
residential zone, 167 acres; an R-15, medium high density residential, 79.8 acres. And
a neighborhood business C-N zone, 17.26 acres. And, finally, a C-C, community
business district, at 28.45 acres. The site is located on the north of Chinden Boulevard.
It's approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road, extending east and, then,
continuing east. So, this is the western boundary. Continuing east they have about
5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. It's composed of ten separate tax parcels
and five different property owners. There are some existing uses on the site. There is
an existing tree farm in this approximate location and there are some other homes on
the site. I think there is another one back over here somewhere. I did want to just
mention this property is not currently within the city's area of impact. It is up on the City
Council's agenda for this next Tuesday, the 7th, as part of the north Meridian comp plan
amendment the city is proposing to annex in the subject site on this map and I
apologize for the scale. The subject property is going in this approximate location and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 60 of 90
extending back and goes like this. It butts up to Spurwing on the eastern side. There is
a potential school site shown here. I guess I'll run through the proposed comp plan
designations for the property real quick. This is a mixed use community designation.
As I mentioned, a potential school site. The yellow is a medium density residential and
the green is low density residential. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with
the subject annexation and zoning application. There is not a preliminary plat or no land
uses are being proposed at this time or subdivision at this time. This is a copy of a
concept plan. In the staff report I did touch on several of the concepts and the street
systems and adjacent parcels and things. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed
concept plan. I think I will just touch on a couple of those real quick. The first thing, I
guess, was the legal descriptions with the property. There is some discrepancy over
ownership in this north area and I will get to that here in a second. I have asked the
applicant to kind of clarify their understanding of who owns what kind of up in that area,
because I talked to their surveyor and it's not real clear. The chain of title is a mess and
just -- you will probably hear, I imagine, from a couple people about what's going on up
there today and, like I said, I have another exhibit that I will jump back to soon. The
comp plan -- I just want to -- while we are talking about descriptions, along the western
boundary of this -- this is West Wing Estates. They have a 75 percent open space lot
that is up for redevelopment here soon. It was done in the county, I think 1991 or
something like that, in their 15 year moratorium to be platted, is up here shortly -- soon,
anyways. And they are showing low density residential on the proposed future land use
map. The applicant was proposing to have an R-15 adjacent to that property to create a
transition. Staff is recommending that it be R-8 and, then, they have at least one block
of -- more R-8 and -- R-15, R-8, excuse me, and, then, the remainder parcel could come
back in, redevelop their open space with a low density residential for that transition from
your R-15 higher density stuff to an R-8 medium and, then, the anticipated low on the
property. So that is a request of staff. Stub streets. There were several stub streets
outlined in the development agreement and the staff report. Basco Lane -- and I'm not
going to spend too much time on Basco Lane. It is an existing private lane that takes
access to Chinden Boulevard and, then, comes up and crosses the Phyllis Canal and
heads -- continues north. That is one of the primary access points for several parcels in
here. I'm not exactly even sure who all has an interest in that at this time. There is an
agreement that was formed with Anderson and MDC, which is a subject applicant owner
and one other party that I'm forgetting the name of. There is some language in that -- in
that agreement that does restrict that lane being used for, basically, anything other than
what it's being used for now and some other language that basically says that you
cannot build a public street here in this location. Again, it's basically for as is and not
future development. I did submit a memo to the Commission earlier and the applicant
before the hearing, based on a letter that we received from the applicant yesterday and
sitting down with the applicant and discussing the staff report with them. There were a
couple of the conditions or provisions of the development agreement that in working
with Mike Cole as well, we decided that it would probably work best to reword some of
those conditions, so just to have that handy, I guess. I'll not spend too much time on
them. Numbers five and six on page 11 had to do with sewer and water service. Just
some points of clarification there in that, that it's just -- they are standard requirements,
really, and just spelling out that this site is not sewer-able at this time and it will probably
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 61 of 90
be at least a couple years before sewer is even available out there. Number nine talks
about the current access points and it was the intent of staff that when a development
application is submitted, then, we will condition it, but your access points to Chinden go
away, not that once you submit an application, then, all of a sudden your accesses go
away, but as through the development process we will condition it that existing access
points to Chinden Boulevard need to be abandoned and only provided at the half mile or
at the arterial intersections, as UDC requires. Number ten. Basically staff did not feel --
Black Cat is shown as a future arterial. Staff did not want to propose, restrict, analyze,
even, access points to Black Cat at this time and make that a provision of the
development agreement. We will have another shot when they come in for preliminary
plat approvals in the future to look at access points and see what makes sense.
Chinden I did want to say, hey, you get these ones and that's it. Black Cat will have
another shot at it. We can say this is what ACHD -- this is what their policy is and these
are where your access points are, rather than approving them at this time. So, number
ten just says that they are still subject to review and approval in the future by us and
ACHD. Number 12. This has to do with the current Basco Lane. The last exhibit on
the staff report had what I have access to and that's the Ada County assessor's records
as ownership. So, when I click on a parcel it will give you the information that they have
for who owns the parcel. They aren't always right. I will not say that they are. But
that's what we generally go off of when we try to show ownership of parcels. Condition
number 12 has to do with this question of how do you get to -- there is a large -- and I'm
not even sure how many acres they have -- down over the Phyllis Canal down below
and it goes to the river. But, really, the best location to have a public street come down
and serve this property, as well as Black Cat -- sorry I'm going off the map -- Black Cat
extended in the future, is to have this crossing be here. There is an existing access and
it just -- based on topography, makes the most sense. However, there is this ownership
question. So, number 12 just says if the current Basco Lane can't be used or the
easement that I was mentioning earlier, this easement agreement, muddies things up
and not all the parties can agree to use this crossing for a public street. Then, another
access -- another stub street somewhere -- somewhere in this area, more than likely
right along the western property boundary here, will be evaluated and even required if
this can't -- can't happen in that location. So, that's kind of what number 12 does, is it
makes it -- you know, the preference is for a road to come down here. If that can't
happen, we need to get a road over there, so it needs to come in this location. And
number 13 is just a -- the current tree farm owner or someone representing the tree
farm anyways, had some concerns about an existing structure or structures on the tree
farm not being able to comply with the setback requirements, because they are already
too close to Chinden. This is something that's pretty standard that we deal with on a
fairly regular basis anyways with residential homes that will encroach five or ten feet
even, to required landscape buffer and we do have a mechanism through alternative
compliance just for those instances where there is existing structures or there is other
conditions that don't make full compliance feasible. So, the intent is not to have them
have to knock down structures. As a business they are lawfully created in the county
and will landscape around them or add some additional trees to kind of meet the intent
of the landscape buffer anyways. With that I will note that we did receive a letter -- I
received a letter this afternoon from White Peterson. I don't know if Mr. Nary got a copy
-....- ..""
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 62 of 90
to all of you or not. It was quite lengthy. There is 20 pages or so in it, anyways. I just
got it this afternoon. But did want to make a note that we did get that today and I think
with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval
of the subject application.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would have a couple of questions. One of them is on page three and this
would be a clarification. Paragraph six, land use, E, existing constraints and
opportunities, item two, vegetation, there are some existing trees on this site that should
be protected or mitigated for when this property develops. That's an understatement.
It's a tree farm. My question is is there a distinction between planted trees for
decoration and retail stock or wholesale stock that is not intended for -- to remain there?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't think we have written that into the
UDC, but certainly it's not the intent that every time they sell a tree they have to plant
one to mitigate for it. So, I think when the preliminary plat comes in and if there are any
trees that need to be removed that have -- that have been planted there not for sale,
that they will need to mitigate for those trees or protect those trees, hopefully. So, we
will work with the parks department in the future to have them go out there and say what
trees need to be protected and what trees need to be mitigated for.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. And you mentioned Basco Lane and, actually,
on page 12 and maybe it appears somewhere else. Page 12, item 9, when the property
develops, Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned. Somewhere
else in the report it mentioned that the reasoning for that was that Basco Lane was on
the quarter mile. By your drawings it appears to be on the half mile and would be the
correct place to have a collector and a public road that would go all the way to the
Aldape property. Am I saying that correctly? And the only reason I'm familiar with that
is it came up at the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearings.
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right, the -- and I'm sorry I
didn't have that exhibit, but there is a frontage or back-age road shown along Chinden
on that map you're talking about, the north Meridian transportation system map or
whatever we call it, that is part of this comp plan amendment. So, that the entrance
comes in at the half mile and the collector -- it doesn't have to be a straight collector, the
applicant is proposing a collector street system and it may loop as the whole collector or
have one leg of it or the other be the collector. I mean it's to be determined. But they
have agreed that a collector from Chinden to the north will be constructed when they
come in for preliminary plat. So, that is something --
Zaremba: And one way or another that will go all the way to the north property line?
Hood: Yes.
.,.,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 63 of 90
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: And, then, so that, then, the existing tree farm can take an access to that future
roadway and not utilize the access now. So, those can go away.
Zaremba: One other question on page 12, item 15, all contiguous property currently
owned by MDC at level C is part of a subject annexation application. I agree with that.
That that should happen. I think the City Council will agree with that. We don't like out
parcels owned by the same people, but my question is 11 -- Exhibit A is legal
descriptions. Would that change the legal descriptions that need to be provided?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it's still a question to me. Mr. O'Neil came
into the office yesterday, had an exhibit. There may be a piece of property that MDC
owns that's not contiguous, so that should probably be written into that number 15, that
any contiguous property that MDC owns be part of the --
Zaremba: It does currently --
Hood: Okay. So, if -- and that's why I say, this is really -- I have not seen any two
documents that show it the same. There is really a question mark out there of who
owns what.
Zaremba: I guess the issue is that the way you showed it as the County Assessor
apparently has it and since that's the taxing authority, I would hope they are correct
some of the time. Not that I want to speak to the motivation of the current applicant, but
that would be a perfect spite strip -- spite strip if they wanted the road not to go all the
way through and I don't think we should allow that.
Hood: And I will let the applicant address that a little bit more, but that's exactly what
staff's concern was, too, is that if, in fact, you own this, then, there is no way for the
TICO One parcels on the east side to go anywhere. I mean they can't, then, provide
that access to the Aldape property and that's why the condition that I read in earlier.
Then, another stub needs to happen somewhere else, because the road does need to
get down to those folks and if it can't happen there, it needs to happen somewhere else.
And these -- that's the ideal situation for it to happen right there. And I think the
applicant is willing to allow them to use that, but there are some other folks that are
subject to this agreement that mayor may not be willing to cooperate and that's where
the -- I have not seen correspondence from them saying we are willing to allow anything
other than what's in the agreement that they created five years ago, whenever that
easement was created to happen on Basco Lane. So, right now just looking at it, it
doesn't look like it can be a public street there, based on the existing easement. So,
that's why we have kind of written in the plan B. Not the ideal situation, not the
preferred route to go, but if that happens and we -- they can't all get together, then, we
still need to get a road down there. So, does that --
"~"
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 64 of gO
Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. I'm done.
Rohm: All right. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neil, 222
East River Walk, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight as a representative of the
Treehaven, LLC, the applicant for the project. We will definitely deal with some of the
issues that were talked about, but before that I'm going to step back and, as you said
earlier, this is our opportunity to sell to you why we believe this is a good project. So,
I'm going to do that in a ten minute -- or a ten second version -- ten minute version, as
opposed to the time and effort that we have put into this so far. So, the first thing that I
want to do is remind you tonight that the purpose we are here for is for the annexation
and zoning of 358 acres, plus or minus. It is a large piece of property and I will get to
that in a little bit. We will come back in; you will have another chance to see preliminary
plats and more details, et cetera. You guys are certainly aware that this property -- I'm
going to try to wait to see if we can get caught up. Take you through some exhibits.
What I'm going to do is just jump passed the first slide and talk to you about -- a little bit
about the team involved in the project. That's my slide four, but I will just fast forward
until we get there. Treehaven, LLC, is a partnership between the Carnahan family -- the
Carnahan family that's here tonight and they are long time Treasure Valley residents.
They are the owners of the current Jaker Nursery, which people have referred to as the
Tree Farm. They also have a house there. And so they have been around a long time.
And, then, O'Neil Enterprises is our company, Pete O'Neil and myself. We have been
developing in the Treasure Valley for the last -- over 25 years. What we have focused
on is master planned residential communities. That's all we have done. And we have
done it primarily here in the Treasure Valley, projects that I'm sure you're aware of. The
rest of the team is our land planner, Downing, Thorpe, and James, who is out of
Boulder, Colorado. They have been with us since the early '80s. What they focus on is
land planning for master planned residential communities. Our engineer is River Ridge
Engineering. Legal is Givens Pursley. And marketing we have a company is Stohl's
Marketing Group. We put the team together first before we start anything on a piece of
property. So, that's our team. Now that I'm caught up with the slides, I'm going to get
you kind of oriented in a little bit different way. I think Caleb did a great job and just an
anecdotal note I need to mention, tonight you guys had over 700 lots that were in front
of you, not even including this. I got my draft staff report mid last week, which is earlier
than I have gotten a staff report in any other jurisdiction. So, how you're keeping up
with it I don't know, but these guys are doing a good job to keep up with it. In a regional
context, I think it's important for you guys, you obviously are really aware of this area.
This is the property right here. Eagle here. Star here. This is the rim. Phyllis Canal.
So, the area below the rim. This is the much discussed McDermott. I'm not saying that
that's in alignment, but that comes pretty much down McDermott and shows that
somehow it's going to have to get across and over to there. All the stuff in white was --
up to two months ago what's been approved and being built. This is all now white
based on what you have done in the last couple of weeks. This is the Bainbridge
project. You were talking about access. Bainbridge access winds up exactly where we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 65 of 90
are at, one of our main accesses will line up. This is Spurwing. That gives you a fairly
good idea of where we are in the world, of the regional area. As it relates to the
property -- go to the next slide there, Jason. This doesn't show up real great, but it is
358 acres, plus or minus. There are two specific out parcels and the folks that are
going to testify tonight would be the owners of this parcel and, then, the owners of this
parcel. They are the two out parcels that are not owned or a part of the application.
And those are, really, the two issues you're going to hear tonight. This is Basco Lane,
the discussed item. This area, if you drive down Chinden, you're familiar with the red
barn, that's the red barn. That is the Jaker nursery. And, then, you can see the rows of
trees that are in there. Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. We had, actually,
comments on that same deal. If we have to preserve all the trees, we are going to be in
deep trouble. There are some existing trees out there, though, that we will work hard to
preserve that are big. In fact, there is a great willow tree here and that's part of what we
do, we like to preserve and enhance landscape. And, certainly, the Carnahan family
does. The Phyllis Canal, which runs here, right now there is two -- this is Black Cat and
Black Cat stops here and, then, there is access to this property and it continues down
here. There is about a 50-foot bluff from the top of the bluff down to the base of the
canal. There are two areas, one currently crosses the canal and gets to the Aldape
property down here and, then, the other has a little bit of a cut and is a logical area that
ultimately could come down and cross over here. The rest of it is pretty steep bank.
Then Spurwing Country Club here. This is the West Wing Estates, the non-ag or farm
set aside that will convert back into the project at some point in time. So, that's a
general property location. Yeah. And the Carnahan's house. Excuse me. That's
Doug's house right there. That covers, essentially, the existing conditions. That's
something we like to look at at the very beginning. We look at all the existing
conditions, also irrigation laterals -- there is some irrigation here, there is irrigation here,
all the elements that would require us to underlay a master plan. Next slide, Jason.
We already talked about the project team. Next slide. Planning process. For us, we do
an awful lot of work before we start drawing anything on a plan. We start out with
existing features, conditions, drainage topography, existing buildings, et cetera. The
next thing we do is have neighborhood meetings, in addition to the required meetings.
We met with Spurwing, we met with surrounding owners, and it was a bit shock for
many of them to say, geez, this 360 acres is going to be turning into a community. After
we went through the kind of community most of them got very comfortable with what we
were trying to do, but certainly you guys hear testimony all the time of people that are
having trouble with that. So, we like to get their input to begin with. Then, we go to
every agency we can think of that has something to do with the property, all the way
from the highway district, Department of Transportation, drainage, and we sit down with
them and say what are your concerns and we talk with them. Then we look at the
Comprehensive Plan or the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for zoning
requirements and we look at those and try to overlay those. And, then, lastly, but very
important, we look at market conditions and competition. What's happening around us?
What kind of projects are being done. Do we want to be just like everyone else or are
we going to provide some alternative product, et cetera? We go through that for the
planning process. Next slide. We end up with after probably 40 or 50 sheets of paper;
we end up with what we call a concept plan. And that concept plan is based on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 66 of 90
belief in master planning. We really believe that and you guys have seen that all night
long. You have seen out parcels, you have seen small parcels, you have seen the
benefit of having larger acreage assemblage and be able to master plan so it all has a
plan and in the future you're not worrying about stubs, you're not worrying about a lot of
things that you guys have seen tonight. So, master planning is a very important
concept to us. And in doing so, we do it in a way that can allow separate different types
of uses to co-exist well together. Commercial uses, higher density uses, residential,
lower density uses. And we have done that in every project we have done and it's really
-- they have worked well together. So, master planning is a key thing. Our goal -- we
have about ten goals in terms of what we set out to create as the key elements for a
community. Our first goal is to create an authentic sense of place and we can do that
here, very fortunate, in that there is an existing tree farm. That's where we have
debated that -- as someone talked earlier tonight about what to name the project and
Tree Farm seems a very logical name. It may not be conventional, but it's very logical.
That's what the property has been and there is a lot of identification to that. The next
thing is there is an existing barn on the property that's used as offices for the retail
nursery and we anticipate keeping that and having that a critical element as you enter
the project, to create an authentic sense of place, to say that, you know, something was
done here and they are keeping some of that. So, that's a key element. That second
goal that we always work to is having greater diversity in housing. We really believe
that. And we believe that for not only the product type, but also pricing. We believe that
a greater diversity of housing creates a just more diverse social community. It creates a
lot of different types of people. We think that's very positive. So, from a housing
perspective, we took and looked at the existing constraints and condition in the comp
plan and you will see that we have put the majority of our density along Chinden
Boulevard, along with some commercial, and, then, we start scaling our density back
until we get to the rim and we put some higher density housing. Black Cat -- Black Cat
here. There is some discussion that it will come down the rim and maybe some day
connect up to McDermott and across the river. So, we have put some different housing
types along there with the thought that the highway district and the city is -- said that this
would be an arterial at some point in time. So, our plan anticipates somewhere
between 1,000 to 1,200 units and on the property that equates to just over three units
per acre. Again, most of that density is along Chinden and, then, it moves back. About
15 percent would be estate housing or larger home sites. And, then, about 35 percent
would be single family -- traditional single family housing. Thirty percent would be
lifestyle housing and lifestyle housing, in our definition, is a smaller home site, a patio
home, a cluster home, that is for -- what people were talking about tonight, empty
nesters, retirees, single people, people in transition. And, then, the last component of
our housing would be village housing and village housing would be condominiums,
townhomes, or apartments. And that would be closer to the Chinden Road. So,
diversity of housing is very very important. In diversity of housing, not just one area,
one type, and, then, go like that, but we also have been able to mix different types of
housing next to each other and around each other. We think that's important. The next
element was everyday convenience in social interaction. We have a part of the property
here, which is C-C, community commercial, and we are working on a plan now that
would turn that into a combination of retail, office, restaurant, and things that would not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 67 of 90
only benefit this area, but all the residents around here. Designing a way to become
very compatible with the project here. And, then, the next element that's key and a goal
to us is connection to nature and open space. Over 15 percent of the project,
approximately, will be open space and our open spaces, what we like to do, instead of
having just an all-in-one area, we like to link open spaces from one part of the project all
the way to the other and put pathways within those open spaces, so you can from one
point to the other. So, you see our open space ribbons separating neighborhoods, but
also connecting neighborhoods. So, we have not only the connectivity of the roads, but
we have pedestrian connectivity as well, so you don't always have to be on a road to get
to areas. Next goal is -- for us is health and well-being. We have a significant
community facility and neighborhood commercial area here. That community facility is
on about a ten acre site and that would be for the use of the tree farm residence, it
would tie together with our neighborhood commercial where we see child care, we see
coffee shops, we see a retail nursery and not necessarily the wholesale nursery, but a
retail nursery as our anchor in this neighborhood commercial area. It would have a
workout area, a swimming pool, and be a very extensive place for people in the
community to gather and recreate. Also, open space before that. And, then, we have a
few other goals. Sustainable development. We are working on some things that
incorporate responsible use of water recycling, storm water runoff, and energy
efficiency. Then, lastly, to other key items. School. You notice on the comp plan that
there was a school designated somewhere in this area and we have met with Wendell,
we have talked to him -- until he saw this plan he didn't even -- he didn't even think of a
school on the north side of Chinden. He saw this plan and he said, boy, there probably
is a need for that. But it's not -- because the other school that you're working on is right
over here in Keego Springs, I believe. We have met with them. We are willing to work
with them. He hasn't decided that this is the only location and best located, but we
certainly see a school as a positive to the community. We will continue to work with
them and are excited about that potential. And, lastly, which I should have started with,
because it's really how we overlay our plan, is transportation. And, obviously, the key
elements with transportation are access to Chinden. We have met with the Department
of Transportation, met with the highway district, and our key accesses -- only accesses
are at the required -- what they are now requiring half section lines. So, this lines up
directly across from Bainbridge and, then, this lines up directly across from Black Cat
Road. And, then, you can see -- people have been calling this a backage road. I don't
know that I would define it as that, but it accomplishes that. This is a collector --
commercial collector status road that allows a buffer or separation between more
conventional residential uses and that and, then, we have a collector road here and,
then, it connects over to here. And, then, stub streets, obviously, is a big topic. Every
project you had has referred to that. So, we are going to -- stub streets were discussed
and we are okay with a stub to here and we are okay with a stub somewhere in this
neighborhood and Doug Carnahan is going to talk to that in a minute. So, from a timing
standpoint, we are expecting a preliminary plat for the first phases in spring-summer of
2006. We are expecting to start construction so it's concurrent with the sewer that will
be brought to Black Cat right now. Public Works has told us that's late 2007, early
2008, and we want to time up with that. We realize that that's in process and we are
going to pay close attention to that. We are not going to get a project built without
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 68 of 90
having sewer. We are going to need to do that. And, then, the other think that I think is
important -- and you guys have seen, is that on a project of this scale, we would have a
very difficult time coming in and giving you a preliminary for the entire project. We will
give you a preliminary plat for the first phase and, then, we will go forward and we can
give you preliminary plats on larger parcels, but to preliminary plat 1,000 lots for us is
taking the flexibility out of it, A, and it's also not letting us respond to the market and we
think that's very very important. What's good today may not be good five years from
now, seven years from how, ten years from now, and we see this as a ten year project
plus some. So, that goes through kind of the sales pitch in a very very fast format. I
want to talk quickly about the --
Rohm: Derrick?
O'Neil: Yes.
Rohm: We have got 15 minutes here, so you're going to have to conclude fairly quickly.
O'Neil: Okay. I'll conclude quickly. I want to talk about the staff report comments. We
are in general agreement with the conditions for the development as modified with the
March 2nd, 2006, memo that Caleb sent you. There is two conditions on that, Condition
12 and 13, that Doug wants to talk to and I'll let him do that and we will kind of go from
there. I'm going to turn it over to Doug, who is going to speak as a property owner and
a business owner, if I can real quickly.
Rohm: Quickly.
O'Neíl: Yes, I will, and he's going to get to -- he's going to get to the issues that I know
that the public is going to talk about.
Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Carnahan, I
live at 4410 West Chinden Boulevard. Derrick gave you a pretty good history and
context of the property, but what I wanted to do is just visit that again very briefly. Let
me start with about 17 years ago my wife and I bought the property that's bounded in
the green. It's 110 acres. We bought that, because we had a nursery that was started
in Eagle and we moved our -- expanded operations and so started on that area in the
green. And, then, about ten years ago, if you look at the area outlined in the blue up
near the rim there, that's where we decided to build our home and that's where we
reside today. And not today, we do plan to stay there. About five years ago, if you look
at what's bounded in yellow, that's when we added incremental property to our holding
to expand the nursery. But about three years ago it became clear, the die was cast,
development was going to take place in a major way in this area, and so we opted to
acquire another property that's further out in Middleton and started to move our growing
grounds out there. So, we never really fully planted out that area that's bounded in the
yellow. When we acquired the property in the yellow -- you heard reference to an
agreement with the person Anderson and the other name was Thomas. Well, at the
time we bought it the condition they put upon it, they said we will only sell it to you if you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 69 of 90
agree you will not approve any public access or any expanded access over Basco Lane
without our permission. And I said what's that about? And they said, well, we own all
the property -- both sides of the Boise River north of the Aldape property and what we
are interested in is we are turning that into a wetlands conservation area, we are going
to preclude any development and make it a very natural state and we would just like the
opportunity to put a -- to have some voice if anybody is to be doing things of increasing
density or putting things down there, we'd just like some voice in there. I have
subsequently talked to them and they have said we are not trying to stop any
development, that's not our goal, but just keep in mind we are interested in knowing
what's going on. So, that's a little bit of history I'll get to in some more detail. First I'm
going to put on my -- Jason, can you flip back one slide? First I'm going to put on our
nursery hat and, as I said, over time all of our growing grounds will be gone, but if you
look in the purple, as Derrick said, we are going to retain the use of that space and we
are going to use it for an office and a distribution yard. We have some infrastructure
there, we have a number of buildings that some of them are relatively new and
expensive and large and we have a limited amount of things that we can change and as
the expansion of Chinden takes place, we are going to have some difficulties with
setbacks, et cetera. There is a condition that we have to file a certificate of zoning
compliance. We are concerned. We are concerned our business will be shut down,
because a new set of conditions are going to be thrown upon us that we just can't
respond to. And so we are very concerned. Our request is that -- there was some
discussion about a use of alternative compliance. We would request that we are
allowed some privilege for a broader use of alternative compliance, because we just
can't take all our buildings, start moving them -- we have some real limitations. We
have got canals, irrigation systems, we have got a number of things that we just can't be
moving and picking up and changing or it will disrupt our operation significantly. So, we
have operated there for 17 years and we want to use that space just the same. We will
comply if it's reasonable, but we may not be able to comply in every case. So, we
would ask for some help on that one.
Rohm: Sir?
Carnahan: Yeah.
Rohm: I think, really, at this point in time you have done a pretty good job -- both of you
of selling your project and I think maybe what would be best is if we gave the others an
opportunity to voice their concerns and, then, you folks have the last word to come back
up and respond to any questions from -- or comments from the audience. But,
technically, we have already over -- we have exceeded your time here and I think that if
we go ahead and allow them, then, you will have an opportunity to respond.
Carnahan: Okay. But just can I ask one question?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 70 of 90
Carnahan: So, I heard quite a number questions about the Basco Lane, about why--
what property did we not add, because it's not contiguous. I have answers to all those
questions. I was going to walk through them. If you would like to hear answers to those
questions, I'm happy to do it.
Rohm: Yeah.
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the Basco Lane seems to be something that's been
ongoing for a number of months, so if we can quickly get through --
Rohm: It has been all along.
Borup: If we can quickly get through that, I think that would be pertinent.
Rohm: Let's go through that and that's it.
Carnahan: Okay. So, this is Basco Lane. But let me -- on the prior slide you saw
where my house is located. We are concerned that there is only two access locations
from the upper ground to the lower ground. The logical place is Black Cat on the one
hand and the ravine that Basco goes through today. Okay, Jason, can we have that
next one? So, let me reference some parcels. This line is -- south of it is owned by
Treehaven, the applicant. North of it, except for some parcels I'll mention, are owned by
TICO One, which is owned by family that's also connected with the Aldape family. This
parcel here I do absolutely not own. So, that's why we did not make the parcel that I do
own, which is this one right there, that's why we did not include it in the application,
because it's not contiguous. The issue is right -- with this letter, the issue is access right
there. The concern is is that that's controlled through this letter with this other group of
people, but I talked to them and I'm convinced that we can solve that problem. The
issue -- the way the statement is written and the language of the staff report, they say
there is two alternatives; we either put it right where Basco Lane is or you put it way up
the cliff, which makes no sense at all. What really needs to happen is it has to move to
the west and it has to move to the west, because if you look at -- right there were the
road is in the red, that is -- you can maybe see the trees. That is a wooded hillside.
What we own in that area is a wooded hillside. If you try to build a road, it's currently 12
feet wide in that area, you are going to have a lot of problems with removal of trees, that
-- those are the trees on the property that are mature, they are 80 years old, that's a
huge stand of trees all in that area. Also, if you don't have the rights to go across that
property, why not just go like this? I wrote up a document that I feel totally comfortable
with and let me try it on. A condition of approval for our development. The City of
Meridian shall withhold signing of the final plat until one of the two following conditions
are met with regard to providing public access from Basco Lane to the Aldape property
north of the Phyllis Canal. One, MDC, LLC, provides easement across the parcel it
owns -- and I have an exhibit. A legal description. That will allow a public road
connection to the north of the Phyllis Canal. Two. An alternative plan for the public
road access across the Phyllis Canal near Basco Lane as agreed to by the Meridian city
planning staff. What I would suggest -- Basco can't stay where it is. It can't, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 71 of 90
there is another owner intervening there that's going to take years to find. Just move it
over. It's owned by people that are the same family. Just move it over and let me deal
with the issue of clearing that one up, which I feel comfortable taking that on and we can
get our access. Does that answer the question?
Rohm: I think it does. This application tonight is for zoning, not for roads or anything,
and so I'm not sure that that has to be resolved tonight, but I appreciate your testimony,
but I think the application that's before us is just for the zoning itself, so --
Zaremba: I would suggest, though, that that could be included as a development
agreement.
Rohm: And possibly will be. Thank you.
Carnahan: Sure.
Rohm: Okay. Bill Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill Nichols, 5700
East Franklin Road, Suite 200, Nampa, Idaho. I'm here to speak for the Rabehls. Mr.
Rabehl would like to talk about his property a little bit with you, too, and I realize the
hour is late, but I will try to make my points short and to the point. You have the position
statement, which Bill Gigray in our office prepared and submitted and I apologize to
staff, it was delivered to the clerk's office yesterday and we should have tried to get it to
you the same day and I apologize for that. That was my doing, because I know Will
likes to get those things and I said give them to Will first. I want to point out some things
with regard to this and I will try to be brief. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan that
applies to this application is the Comprehensive Plan that's in place at the time the
application is made, not the Comprehensive Plan that's adopted later. And there is a
case Blaser, I believe was the name of the case that dealt with that issue in Ada County
and the holding is that the comp plan at the time the application was filed. So, to
consider this application when it's not in your area of impact, it's not in the urban service
planning area, violates those provisions from that case law in the urban -- the local Land
Use Planning Act. Your current code requires that the annexation only occur within
property that's in the urban service planning area and this is not. Sewer and water are
not available and they won't be available until late. There was a reference in the staff
report to negotiating with United Water and I sat where Mr. Nary sat for over four years
and that's like Anathema and I can't understand why you would entertain an application
where you would not have control over who supplies water, because if you give up
control over the water, you also give up control over how you collect your sewer
charges. The annexation without a development plan, specific develop plan, despite
Mr. O'Neil's reasoned argument, doesn't make sense and the reason it doesn't make
sense is as I can point out to you -- have you ever heard of Kodiak development and the
problems that you had with that one when it was annexed and it was zoned without a
specific development plan? That's one. The second one is the Kissler Cobb Rewe
annexation. That one was also with a concept plan and that one also presented
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 72 of 90
problems to the city, because at one point it had you in a lawsuit over it and I submit to
you that it's ill-advised to not have a specific development plan. A concept plan is just
not specific enough. Annexation and zoning is your opportunity, through the
development agreement, to get concessions from the developer and have those
binding. Once it's annexed and zoned, the entitlement lies and, then, you're faced with
just dealing with little preliminary plat issues. So, I submit to you it's not appropriate to
do that. There is also, as revealed in our position statement, there is a bit of a boundary
issue with the Rabehl's property and the Eggers' property. And, lastly, I would point out
that the Highway 16 extension and the necessity of perhaps using Black Cat for that
mitigates against some kind of annexation and a concept plan when you don't know
what's going to happen with that. With that I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any questions of Mr. Nichols?
Zaremba: I would like a clear identification of where the Rabehl's property is.
Nichols: It would be this property right here.
Zaremba: It's the out parcel in the middle?
Nichols: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That was it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
Nichols: Thank you, Commissioners.
Rohm: Tuck Ewing.
Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I represent
TICO One, which are these two parcels of dirt right there. One three acre parcel and
one six acre parcel. I'd like to start off by saying I apologize for my bad speaking. I'm
not a very good public speaker, so I will do the best I can, but -- and I'll keep it short. I'd
like to say that we are in support of the annexation and proposed zoning that we have
seen on their maps and we think it will be a good addition to the City of Meridian. At this
stage we've really only got one major concern and, obviously, I think we all know what
that is, it's Basco Lane and it's the access issue between our parcels of dirt there. And
can we get that blown up map? This map was -- as staff said, pulled off of Ada County
assessor's map and that's the map that we currently have been using as well. I know
there has been discussions with Mr. Carnahan and Mr. O'Neil to the fact that there --
that could potentially be wrong, but at this stage I have not seen anything that shows
why that's wrong or the map that Mr. Carnahan put up with the strip that he showed.
So, the best thing that I guess that we can go off of right now is what Ada County is
showing and is showing as their tax parcel. I guess our position on this thing right now
is that the agreement that was made between the other parties, as far as the no access
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 73 of 90
down to the Aldape property, is definitely an issue, but it's really not an issue of Aldapes
or TICO's, it's really an issue of MDC's and MDC is the one that's ultimately putting this-
- MDC, along with Treehaven, putting this application in and so we feel they need to
take care of that issue and we need the collector completely through this project clear
through. They say they are taking the collector clear to their north property line, but
their north property line really doesn't end with us, it really goes clear down to here. We
are not suggesting that they have to come in and -- we have even went as far as saying
that we would consider it, given the dirt needed to put the road through there of our
property. So, I guess that, finally, the last thing I'd like to say is we'd like to see the legal
description on this, if this annexation is approved, the legals show what Ada County has
on their records and if the applicant disagrees with Ada County's records, I would like to
see it tabled until such time that we had the real -- what really happened here, so that
we could have that clarification before the annexation happened. So, with that I will
answer any questions.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. You touched on it a moment. You heard the
suggestion that even the terrain would be more appropriate to have the roadway come
through part of your property, as opposed to going through what's indicated as MDC. I
have not been out there and looked at it, so I have no idea how valid that suggestion is,
but can you comment on that?
Ewing: Well, we can get with staff and show them -- we have got topography maps and
everything. But this six acres -- actually, this right here falls right in the existing Basco
Lane and from that point it actually starts going up the grade and, then, from over here it
starts coming up as well. So, my opinion of it is that this strip right now really lies in the
ultimate -- where the drainage ends, the water runs, and the road runs right now. Like I
said, we wouldn't be against working with the developer and even given them dirt if they
need some more, because, obviously, they do narrow down in a couple spots right up
there at the south end and, then, again, up at the north end, but I think ultimately it's
going to fall -- that road's going to fall somewhere in that location and it's not, in my
opinion, going to be to the west, because of the geographic features that exist today. I
know Mr. Carnahan talked about the trees, but I don't know that the trees will outweigh
the amount of effort that's going to be needed to dig the side of the mountain off to
move it over.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Sherry Ewing.
S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at
2934 Lake Hazel and I am representing the Aldape property and the Everest property,
which is also down in the Aldape property. And my main concern is I just want to say
that we need adequate access for emergency vehicles, for the future development of
the property going to the Phyllis Canal, and I'm really feeling like we really need two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 74 of 90
access points, Basco Lane being one and another one on the development. And the
reason that I'm saying that is that's the only access that we have to our property. Black
Cat does not connect to the Aldape property at all. So, that's one thing. I also want to
make it clear right now that TICO One and the Aldape property have no ties. So, that
was a misstatement from the other party. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Then who is the owner of TICO One?
S. Ewing: TICO one is John Ewing, Tuck Ewing and Ben Ewing. And I have nothing to
do with that, even though my last name is Ewing. And, then, the Aldapes is my parents
and, then, the Everest is my sister. So, I don't have anyone in there.
Borup: Okay. And your current access now is down Basco Lane?
S. Ewing: That's the only access we have. The only access we have.
Borup: But it did look like it narrowed down pretty tight, at least as far as what the
assessor's note was showing, is that -- so that's just a real narrow road in those areas?
S. Ewing: There is a dirt road that goes down to the canal and across the bridge.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I do have a question. And this has come up several times in Meridian. The
ones that come to mind are Wingate Lane and Venable Road, where the ownership of
an easement has been either in question or in a difficult situation. I would guess that
your parents have some document that proves that they have the right to pass over
property that they don't own and there would be some value to that document. The city,
of course, doesn't enforce those things; it's a legal matter between the neighbors. But
at the present they would have the right to enforce that document I would think. At least
for the current use. The drawing that I see and even the statement by staff that Basco
Lane should be abandoned, doesn't deal with that. And I guess -- I guess my question
to you is is there anything that you or your parents could think of, because there is value
to that easement, that maybe you could trade with the developer to -- you know, for
giving up part of that easement, which you don't have to do?
S. Ewing: Well, that easement was, actually, obtained by my grandfather, who bought
the property in 1912. And at that time it was a wagon wheel road. And so I think what
they are trying to do is keep it to two houses down there and agricultural. And, of
course, we would like to develop it, we would like to possibly put a park down there and
none of that would be possible with what they are wanting to give us right now. We
would be land locked; basically, because that's the only way we have to get to our land.
Zaremba: Well, I may need a legal comment on this, although Meridian isn't going to
take up the legal aspects of it, but if you have the right to pass over that land, even with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 75 of 90
a wagon wheel or one car or whatever, they can't take that away. Their plans show
Basco Lane not existing. You have the right to say that's not possible, I believe.
S. Ewing: That's not possible.
Zaremba: And that gives you something to trade to say to them I need a complete
connection or I need to continue all the way to Chinden the access that I currently have.
Is that typical of an easement?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, I think it is typical of an easement.
I mean, certainly, that's -- I mean you have raised the issue that we have dealt with
before, but certainly if they have an easement and have a continuous right to have
access through that property, they certainly have the right to maintain that. But it is
between them and the property owners. It appears -- I guess I'm in the same quandary
as the rest of the staff as to where the ownership pieces lie, but if you have an
easement that gives you access all the way to Chinden, you're going to maintain --
you're going to be able to maintain that and have to deal with the property owners to
how that's going to be. I think what's being proposed by the applicant was to simply
move the access to a different spot, but still maintain the access there.
Zaremba: I guess that was another part of my question. Does the easement or the
access have to be maintained exactly where it has historically been or will an alternative
satisfy it?
Nary: It depends on what it says.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: I don't know. That's probably between the Aldapes and the Carnahans and
maybe the Ewings.
Rohm: Thank you, Sherry. Appreciate that. The next names are Art and Sandra
Rabehl. How do you say that?
Rabehl: Rabehl.
Rohm: Rabehl.
Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Arthur Rabehl. My wife and I reside at 6745
North Black Cat Road. And we are the little parcel that is in question right there. We
have lived there for the past 38 years now and, of course, it's a dead end road that as
far as the highway district is concerned ends at my driveway. From there on it's the --
the road that does go passed there is just for access to the farming of the property
around me there. But the highway district when they take and grade or anything, they
grade to my driveway, because that is as far as they go. I want to take and state that
I'm not opposed to development and so on. I mean it's something that's inevitable. It's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 76 of 90
going to happen and we know that. But we want to take and protect ourselves as well
as we can from things that are going on and -- because we do have quite an interest out
there that we want to take care of. At the present time, like I say, we are on Black -- on
the end of Black Cat where there is no traffic, no pedestrians, whereas if this project is
to take and go on as it is stated, there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic, it's
going to completely change the way things are right now. As far as the view, like I say,
from where we are there you can look to the Bogus Basin, all of Boise front, up north to
Squaw -- that's changed, but Squaw Butte. And you go off to the southwest you got the
Owyhee mountains and so on, a very clear, beautiful view. With all these houses that
they want to take and put in, we are going to see walls, roof tops, a lot of people, a lot of
cars and if you go to the south there is going to be stores down there and you're going
to see the back of the store walls. We got a couple other concerns and that is that I
take and raise some pigs out there and some cattle, hay, and so on and what's the
complaints going to be when it smells a little bit? I mean I have heard of grandfather
rights and things like this, but it seems like after a little bit complaints are raised and
pretty quick you're squeezed out and as I say that's a real concern to me. The other
thing that I have got is that we have a boundary issue that has arisen. When we bought
the property out there I would say 38 years ago, we had 4.08 acres. Now, we are listed
at 3.85 I think it is and I haven't sold anything.
Rohm: You're shrinking.
Rabehl: It shrunk. What we did do with the former owners, which was Bill and Berrith
Crookham is on this corner right there Bill was having troubling going around that corner
and he's got a road all the way around that -- the west -- it went around this way like this
to start with. And he was having trouble getting around there with his equipment in that
corner down there. The other part was that the irrigation ditch went through here and
zigged up into my area more, so he came to me and he said, Art, would you take and
consent to changing the ditch? At first he said let's go this way and straight and I said,
no, I said let's go south and straight and he said okay, we do that, can I take and have a
little piece of your corner down there, which I had agreed upon and he agreed. And so
that is the only change that we have had in the property, but, actually, I picked up more
ground on this side than what he got on this side, but I lost on the tax assessment now
and so there is an issue there that we have and that we are going to have to get
squared away and get that settled before we can really move on I think. I mean
because at the present time what they are -- Doug is getting could be my ground and I
don't want to be annexed at this time. So, that's where I stand on that, so -- do you
have any questions?
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask was the land swap agreement recorded or was it
just a gentleman's handshake?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 77 of 90
Rabehl: That was a gentleman's handshake, which we -- we both know now that we
should have done -- you know, had it surveyed at that time and done it, but we didn't. It
was just a -- you know, a gentleman's agreement and that's what we did.
Zaremba: So, if the county doesn't know about the swap, your acreage shouldn't have
changed.
Rabehl: But there is a map out there that -- and I don't have a copy of it here. That
does show an overlay of the corner up there as it was and as it is now, it's a fence line,
and, of course, as you can see, this line here is going to be straight where the ditch
actually is, it doesn't show the zigzag, so I'm not for sure how they come up with these -
- because we didn't file it, which, like I say, that was our mistake that we didn't do it, so -
Borup: Sir, when you originally bought your property, did you have a survey at that time
with the metes and bounds description?
Rabehl: Yes. Yes, we do.
Borup: So, that's still the same description that your deed shows today, then.
Rabehl: Right. Right.
Borup: So, it seems to me like that should be your property.
Zaremba: That 4.8 acres.
Borup: Well, I don't know how many acres it is, but that should be your property,
whatever your deed shows.
Rabehl: But the -- like I say, we got the -- dug out the tax papers and they showed us
with less property and Doug mentioned that, so I'm not for sure what the heck --
Borup: I think whatever is recorded at the recorder's office would take precedence over
tax information.
Rabehl: I hope it does, but that's something we need to check out, because we are not
for sure now just where we do stand.
Borup: So, it would probably be worth checking out.
Rabehl: Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Rabehl: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 78 of 90
Rohm: John.
J. Ewing: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East Lake Hazel, Meridian,
Idaho. Just a quick point. My feeling is is that -- and I know this is for annexation, but
Basco Lane keeps coming up. Our property, TICO One, my two boys and I's property, I
feel like that -- and I'm just going to kind of repeat some of the things that were said real
quick, but there is an issue with who owns that land. I think that I would like to see this
not be granted until we knew who does own the land. I will make it real clear, we will do
-- we will be good neighbors and we can work and see if we move, but definitely if we
move the road to the west, we have got as big an issue or they do of going down there
as they do between the yellow and the white and the -- and the purple area here. So,
you know, the only thing I can see different is the 300 and some acre development
wants to take this six acres right there and take part of it. But, anyway, the bottom line
is is I would like to see who owns the property through there, with legal descriptions,
and before this is approved I think that the owners of that land, if it's not them, be
notified -- legally notified that these hearings are going on where they can put their two
cents worth in and so that's my feelings on it. I will stand for questions or sit down. I'm
still in the green.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I have got a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Your last comment that
someone should be notified if they own -- what were you referring to there?
Ewing: What I -- you know, this is something new. Ever since my two sons and I have
owned that property, we have always been told that we did not own the land that
actually the tree farm did.
Borup: Which land are you referring to?
Rohm: Basco Lane?
Ewing: Basco Lane. The land through our -- you know, actually, the other map is a lot
better. We were always told we didn't own any of this. We were told we didn't have
access to any of this. We have had quite a bit -- and we also was told that this was also
-- all of this land that's dashed was owned by the same owners that have the tree farm.
Carnahans. Now, it's just been the last week that this has come up that they don't own
it and stuff and I'm not saying they do own it, I don't know. You know, I'm not saying
that they --
Borup: But you said someone needs to be notified, another owner.
Ewing: Well, what I'm saying now is as if they are saying they don't own the section in
here and they don't own this, some body's got to own it. And all I'm saying is is I have
always heard --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 79 of 90
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: -- that property owners within so many feet of a project --
Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. You're saying if they don't own it,
somebody else does and they need to be notified. Do you feel comfortable that the
survey that you have is accurate on the property that you do own?
Ewing: Well, yeah, it was a certified survey and --
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: -- and we have got it. We can still find all of our pins. I guess to answer your
question, I feel very good that ours is right, but, you know, if our neighbors come and
say our survey is wrong and they show us and -- you know, and our -- and everybody
accepts that, that's all right. 1--
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: I think it's as good as you can ever think that any of your surveys are.
Borup: I understand.
Ewing: Yeah.
Borup: Thank you.
Ewing: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Just a comment on that. It would seem to me that the tax
assessor's office would send out a bill every year. If that bill's not being paid, then, this
property is in default and the county would take it and auction it off. If it has been paid,
would the county assessor tell us who sent the check? Does anybody know the answer
to that?
Borup: Well, they probably would, but just because the county bills you and the person
pays it, if you own multiple properties, it's hard to figure out what goes to where and,
believe it or not, they do make mistakes.
Zaremba: Well, there would have to be two mistakes. The county would have to be a
mistake in who they were sending it to and that person would have to mistakenly pay it.
Borup: But it happens a lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 80 of 90
Zaremba: I guess I wonder is it possible to find out who has been paying it, if it's been
paid?
Borup: I think so.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- does this burden fall to us to sort out the Basco
Lane problem or does it not fall to the property owners in question here?
Rohm: Well, I think that, ultimately, is falls back on the property owners themselves, but
what I'm kind of thinking after taking the testimony tonight, that we have got a lot of
information here that needs to be absorbed and I personally don't think that I'm
anywhere close to being ready to move forward with this and I think that as a
Commission we would not be doing justice to the application or any of the other
concerned parties by acting on this tonight and my personal opinion is that we should
continue this and have an opportunity to read the 22 page letter issued by Mr. Gigray's
office and also take into consideration all the testimony we have heard tonight and
possibly even confer with staff some more and -- and I don't think that there is anything
that we can move forward with tonight that would provide any concrete solution to
response to the application and that's --
Borup: And that may be, but, Mr. Chairman, I do have two questions I'd kind like to see
if staff may be able to answer.
Rohm: I mean I'm not saying that we need to shut it down right at the moment, I'm just
saying that I don't think that we are going to get a -- I wouldn't recommend we make a
motion to conclude this thing, but go ahead.
Borup: The two questions I have -- and I don't know if it was a right assumption, but
assuming responsibility on access to the north would go as far as ownership of the
applicant would be, would that be correct?
Hood: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. So, the only -- so, the part that -- whether Basco Lane is pertinent to this
would determine where that north -- or that north access point would be or the north
stub street. If the property does end right there, that's where that would end. If they do
own it clear to here, then, I assume -- so, it sounds like -- is that where the question --
the contention is? I don't know if it's -- I shouldn't say contention, but that's where the
question may be? So, someone has to determine where the north property would go to.
So, I think this ownership is pertinent to that extent -- in that aspect. The other thing --
the only thing I had a question on is that of the legality of -- I mean this is not in our area
of impact. Have we ever looked at anything before as far as an annexation when it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 81 of 90
hasn't even been in the area of impact? Is there any legal aspect we should be taking
into consideration here or are you comfortable with proceeding as we have started?
Rohm: I think that we have taken into consideration applications along our east line of
our area of impact where it butts up against the city of Boise and there has been swaps
all along that -- that east line and --
Borup: But this is a parcel that's not in any city's area of impact.
Rohm: It's not in the City of Meridian's area of impact and that's where it is similar to
property along the east line of the City of Meridian where we will go into areas that is
outside of our area of impact.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I believe I recollect reading somewhere in the staff report that that issue is,
actually, going to be heard by the City Council March 7th, which would be next
Tuesday. That's one more reason for us to continue this and not try and make a
decision tonight. The action of the City Council, we -- if they act on our
recommendation, which was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then,
upon that happening this will be in our area of impact.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: So, like I say, that's one more reason to continue it. I also feel that there are
a number of issues -- and I won't call them legal issues, but border issues to identify
exactly what property is being annexed and agree with staff, if there is common
ownership of any parcel that's not included, it needs to be included. We don't want little
pieces left over. There must be some way to prove that or not prove that. And that's
something that would be cleared up during a continuance. I'm sensitive to the fact that
applicant's and developers usually want to move stuff forward as fast as they can and I
would be more sensitive if there were already a plat or CUP coming with it. This is only
an annexation. We aren't slowing them down. The sewer won't be there for two years.
So, they can't really start moving anything. I don't believe we are doing any damage to
the applicant to continue it.
Rohm: I would concur with that. I would also offer one additional comment that in all of
our considerations on development, we are always talking about having a continuance
of accessibility from one property to the next. I don't see this as any different than any
other application in that regard. If, in fact, this property is to be developed, it is going to
have to provide an opportunity for egress to the property to the north, whether it's Basco
Lane or some other road that's adjacent or otherwise, because there is no way that they
can land lock their neighbors to the north. And I just throw that out as a comment, not
necessarily for anything to be resolved tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 82 of 90
Zaremba: It might be appropriate to have the applicant come back and speak.
Rohm: You may come up, yes. No. No. We are not trying to stop you from discussing
anything.
P. O'Neil: There is no problem with a continuance. I think we can clear up -- I sense
some confusion --
Zaremba: Sir, you need to state your name.
P. O'Neil: Yeah. I'm Pete O'Neil, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. Yeah. I think
there has been some confusion and what I'd like to do is try to shed a little light on that if
I might. As -- you know, I can't help but make the observation that the bulk of the
conversation tonight was dealing with parcels that weren't part of any master plan that
kind of got left out and stub streets and access onto Locust Grove and so on and so
forth. We've worked hard for 25 years just to try to include things so you avoid that. We
haven't been successful yet, because the Ewings decided not to be part of the
annexation process. The Rabehls initially were part of it, they were advised that they
should pull out, so they did. We have met with them before, during, and after all of
these processes. So, let me make a couple of observations. In terms of our
understanding of can you annex property that is not in the impact area, we were asked
by the City of Meridian to request consentual annexation of our property. If that came
before the impact area change, so be it. So, we were doing what we were requested to
do by the city. City services, we have discussed that, we understand that's all in
process. The services for us are no different than the services for the acres and acres
and acres of projects you approved to the south of Chinden before the services were
there. So, there is really not a big issue there. As far as the Rabehls are concerned,
you know, I really respect somebody who moved out to the country a number of years
ago to live in the country, just like the Carnahans did, just like John Ewing bought the
property and so on. So, the fact is the world's changing out there. You're not going to
be able to protect four acre ranchettes forever and that's unfortunate, but, you know, the
progress, if that's what it is, has moved west and things are changing. Now, we are
trying to be good neighbors, want to work with everybody. If there is a property dispute
on Ruvel's property that we can help resolve, we are happy to do it. We have the legal
description of Eggers and the legal description that we are matching up, we have told
them we will do what we can to resolve. So, I don't think that's -- those are serious
issues. We'd like to work with them. We probably got ahead of ourselves by having an
appraisal done on the property, so, you know, at least a starting point on what would
happen if we gave you some money and you can go duplicate your rural lifestyle
somewhere else. We have acquired the Avery's property, which is on the corner of
Black Cat and Chinden for the same purposes. The Ewings' access concerns, the
Aldape access concerns, are legitimate concerns. As it relates to Ewing, we have made
it very clear and I think they understand that this is a collector road and we will give
them a stub with all the services on the collector road to the neighboring property to the
north. The fact that there is an easement that goes through their property to Aldape's, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 83 of 90
don't think it's our responsibility to build a collector road over an easement, regardless
of who owns it, you know, across a neighboring piece of property to the next piece of
property. But I guess the lawyers can figure that out. The Aldapes have a -- and we
have met with them several times -- a very serious concern. They don't want to be land
locked. They don't want to be limited to two houses, an easement to two houses. We
have never said we are going to limit them to an easement to two houses. There is
ample room and Mr. Carnahan showed how that would work, of getting a collector road
down the canyon. He will do what he can to make sure any property that he controls
will be available for that right of way. Some of it's going to have to come out of Ewings'
property when they come in with an application to access the property to the north.
Now, to Tuck's point, this legal confusion -- legal description confusion, he's dead right.
I mean we met with John and Tuck ten days ago, we are looking at the same stuff and
we got two or three different pictures of it. We have had the smartest title people and
the smartest lawyer people in town and they don't even agree. We received two days
ago, you know, the latest update on who owns what. Doug actually went out with a
surveyor again on the ground, so on and so forth. We promised the Ewings that we
would sit down, share with them everything we have learned, they can share with us
everything they have learned, and I'm absolutely convinced, A, there is a resolution to
who owns what, and, B, regardless of who owns it, there is a way to get from the
Ewing's south boundary to the Ewing's north boundary without screwing up their
property and allowing the Aldape access. I will say that to -- for us to provide two
accesses to the Aldape property I think is unreasonable and unfair. You're opening up
a can of worms of 1,400 acres below the Phyllis Canal north to the river, which, as you
know, is grounds for World War III with your neighbors to the north and so on and so
forth as to who controls that ground. We have suggested Basco Lane is one approach
to that ground to the south -- from the south and Black Cat is the other. Now, whether it
comes from Duck Alley or whether it lines up on Pollard or something to the east or
west, there is a much bigger issue than one property owner's property there and I don't
think that's a subject of this annexation or agreement -- or up to us to resolve. It's up to
bigger powers and bigger problems and bigger politics to resolve. I will say as
developers of the property on the rim and Doug as the owner, we care what happens
down there and we are going to want something nice to happen down there, so it's
pleasant for the owners and it's -- we are planning open spaces on the rims, so
everybody can enjoy the views and so on and so forth. So, I think that's -- that's alii
can add and we are not opposed to a continuance, but I just thought rather than leaving
all of these things dangling, they are not quite as confusing as they are made out to be
and I -- Doug might reiterate his commitment to making this happen.
Rohm: Yeah. Actually, I think it's clear enough that I'm pretty sure that just a
continuance at this point will suffice and all of this will be worked out over the next
couple of weeks and I would say also that the area of impact adjustments that the
Commission has forwarded onto City Council recommending approval includes this
property that you're talking about, just as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, and so I
don't think that there is anyone on this side that is the least bit interested in stalling this.
We are all on the same page. We are all trying to work to the same goal. So, that's -- if
we -- I or any of us left you with the impression we are trying to stop this, I apologize.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 84 of 90
P. O'Neil: No. I understand that. I just wanted to clear up -- and there is one other
issue that --
Nary: You need to get closer to the mike, sir.
P. O'Neil: Bill Nichols mentioned that you can't annex and zone without having a
detailed plan. Then, I have been operating illegally for 30 years, because that's the way
I have done every project we have done. We have done PUD's. We have got annexed.
We have got zoned. We have got concept plans. And we come back in with detailed
plans. I think that provides a much better end product than coming in with these
monster subdivisions of cookie cutter lots. But mean I would argue that all day with
anybody who wants to.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
P. O'Neil: Could I say just one -- I'm concerned. I'm concerned because I saw four
people stand up there and say we are trying to restrict access and do -- what I said was
that we support public access through there and we are willing to have that condition
upon our agreement and I heard all this -- I don't know where it came from. I just
wanted people to understand real clearly. We support public access down that location
in the ravine. I don't want to chop down a bunch of trees to do it, but we support it and
we can deliver it and I just don't want there to be any confusion on that, because there
sure was based on what I heard from the comments and I know who owns those
parcels. I absolutely have certainty on who owns those parcels. So, just to clear that
up.
Rohm: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wondered if I could at least address the legal issues that
the Commission has raised and some of the comments, if you would like. I don't know
when you're going to continue it, so I don't know who will be sitting here. What was
raised -- a couple of different issues were raised and one was the Blaser case, which is
an old case from the Cty of Boise, but that's not an area of impact case, that's a city
limits case, and whose law applies at what point when property is annexed into the city
and that case involves entitlements that pre-existed annexation. So, the court -- the
Idaho Supreme Court in that case addressed it pre-existing entitlements to properties
that were in the county that were annexed into the city of Boise. I don't necessarily think
it's analogous to this situation. Idaho Code allows for cities to annex consentual
properties that are contiguous, whether they are within or without the area of impact. As
all of you have stated, the City of Meridian has requested an area of impact adjustment,
that process is ongoing; it is in front of the City Council Tuesday for their final
consideration. If they do make a final decision on Tuesday, it still has to go to the Ada
County commissioners for their agreement as well, but once it is approved by the city,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 85 of 90
the city can begin to apply its land use zones and land use regulations to those
properties at that particular point. This obviously -- the Commission is a recommending
body. So, this project would not reach the City Council until after that other one or your
recommendation could be for the City Council not to consider it until they have
completed that area of impact adjustment process. The staff's recommendation isn't to
annex the property until that's all completed anyway, because applying the appropriate
zones and the like is part of the process. So, there really isn't a particular legal issue
there. The city code allows the city to annex an area outside its area of impact. There
is a conflict with the Ada County code, but that's for the Ada County commissioners to
decide on whether enforcement is appropriate. If they choose to enforce, I guess they'd
have to enforce it against the city of Eagle as well, which they have chosen not to do,
because they have the exact same conditions with the city of Eagle and they have
allowed Eagle to annex outside its area of impact and have chosen not to enforce the
Ada County code in relation to the city of Eagle. So, there isn't a legal issue on
annexation. This city has the right to annex property that is contiguous, that is
consentual. So, that isn't an issue. I don't believe Mr. Nichols' stated as Mr. O'Neil
heard, that we cannot annex property that is only on a concept plan, I think he was --
maybe I misunderstood him. I think what he was saying is he wasn't recommending to
you as a Commission to recommend it, nor would he recommend to the City Council,
who has the ultimate decision, to do that and he cited two examples and I know Mr.
Nichols knows I know the Kodiak project and the Kessler Rewa project just as well and
there were some issues and some problems that those two projects had when they
were annexed based on concept plans. But as this Commission knows and the City
Council knows, the Uniform Development Code has cleared up many of those issues
about what happens to properties when they get annexed, how to deal with these
conceptual plans and attach them to the underlying development that's going to come
in, how do development agreements that we have been doing may address those types
of concerns. But, again, those are all discretionary choices that the City Council can
make and choices that this body can make as a recommendation to the City Council.
They aren't prohibitions to annexation; they are simply considerations that this body can
make as a recommendation going forward. The final issue that was raised was on
water and whether or not it's wise to annex property when the water issues may still be
up in the air. We, actually, have made significant progress as a city with United Water
on some of the areas that they are either currently serving or would like to serve. I
guess we are confident and comfortable that those issues can be worked out. And,
again, most of these services, I think as Mr. O'Neil stated, you approved projects
tonight that there aren't services available currently and there aren't services that may
be available for a year, year and a half, two years. These projects know that. We
include that in the conditions of approval, so there is certainly no hiding the ball there.
They recognize what they take at this particular point if they choose to annex
consentually. So, I just wanted to address those legal concerns, so that as -- if you're
going to continue this matter as it appears you may, that is an issue I would hope
maybe -- if you have a question we can answer it tonight, but that you don't have to re-
factor in or concern yourself with for the next time period and if you want to focus on
some of the other issues, like whether or not this issue on the north and the access road
and those type of things need to be cleared up before you feel comfortable making a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 86 of 90
recommendation, you can focus on those things and not these other legal issues. And,
certainly, you want to have opportunity to read the objection that's filed by the White
Peterson, but I, hopefully, have addressed at least the issues that were raised tonight.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I think at this point in time what I
would recommend is we get a motion to continue this until the -- at least the April 6th
regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning and we will have opportunity to
digest and we may end up having to continue it yet again.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: Before we do that, I would add one comment to Mr. Nary's excellent remarks,
and that is to Mr. and Mrs. Rabehl. There is provision for us to include what's called the
Right- To-Farm Act, and which protects you from complaints of people that got there
after you and that is something that's usually attached to the plat, not to the annexation,
but that issue will come up if they file a plat and right on the plat they put Right-To-Farm
Act, which means anybody that buys a house that backs up to your property line, knows
you have animals and raise hay and their complaints are not accepted.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: May I make a comment?
Rohm: You may.
Newton-Huckabay: Or ask a question? What exactly will we be resolving on April 6th?
I don't see any clear issues that would hold up annexation on this. I mean I understand
there are these disputes --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I'd like to see is the new configuration with
the additional R-8 parcel along the eastern boundary; I'd like to see a final depiction of
that.
Rohm: And it might not be a bad idea to vocalize those things that you'd like to see, so
that we will have additional information to make better decisions from whatever date we
continue it to. Before we go on, if you will -- one more comment.
O'Neil: Derrick O'Neil again. I was just going to follow up on that. It would help us a lot
and I'm sure help everyone if we could come to some things that we need to focus on,
so when we come back to you we will be addressing the specific issues that you have.
Rohm: And I concur with that, but I don't know that we can list every single concern that
there may be. I think that this is something that possibly could be continued with some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 87 of 90
answered next time and if we continue again and -- this is a big project and I think that
it's important that we do it right.
O'Neil: I realize that and all we are asking is if you can give us direction and we will
come back and do every bit we can to solve the issues that you have.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the additional suggestions I would make -- and this is
not a new suggestion, everybody has suggested this ahead of me -- that the people that
are here tonight get together off site and everybody has agreed to work together and
everybody has offered to be considerate and helpful. There isn't any way for us to
practically enforce that, but I would say during the period of our continuance if you can
all get together and air your grievances and agreements with each other, then, when we
do have the continued portion of this, I feel that would be a lot more helpful for us and
probably staff as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, again, I need to be clear on what the issues are, because I
don't -- I mean that would hold up an annexation?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I feel the same as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. You
said that we'd need to consider a myriad of issues, but I haven't really heard one -- I
have only got one question in my mind, now that I think about it.
Rohm: I haven't read the 22 page --
Borup: Well, he mentioned about four things and I think that --
Rohm: I'm just telling you, I haven't read the 22 page letter written by that office and I'm
not going to limit -- one of my concerns are until --
Borup: I did read it.
Rohm: -- and that's it. So, with that being said, if anybody would like to make a motion
to continue this to a later date, date certain, I'd certainly entertain it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, can I get -- just one more thing real quick. I think you're heading in --
wanting to get out of here. But the memo that I wrote -- did anyone have a chance to
look at it? Can I include those provisions and we can discuss further? Shall I not
include them?
Borup: I think Mr. O'Neil said he agreed with your comments, if I remember right.
Hood: The last two it sounds like they had some issues with. Number 13 goes back to
that existing barn and there may be some other things maybe on Chinden that encroach
and the intent is not to have any -- cause any hardship or do any harm to the existing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 88 of 90
business. We will do everything we can to accommodate the existing business out
there and that's alii was trying to get here is that we do want to see it improved, you
know, paving the parking lots, you know, do those types of things, bringing it up to
standards, but if there are existing conditions, you are -- and someone said
grandfathered earlier. You are grandfathered in with some of those things, so -- and
they can be discussed further, I was just wondering if it would be easier for me to put
this into the staff report and we can discuss further at that point. Commissioner
Zaremba, I will also call Ada County and see if I can find -- just because someone's
paying the bill, doesn't necessarily mean they own it, but at least you could have
information on who's been paying it, if, in fact, I can get it. So, I can do these things, I
guess. I don't have -- it doesn't sound like there is a lot I can do in the next two weeks,
four weeks, however long you decide you're going to continue this out, if that's what
you're going to do, so --
Zaremba: My comment on that -- and I forget who it was, whether it was Mr. O'Neil or
Mr. Carnahan, but one of them said they know who ones it.
Hood: Yeah.
Zaremba: We didn't ask for the answer to that, but maybe you could. Appreciate that.
Hood: And I think, really, the only outstanding issue from staffs perspective, and based
on the applicant's testimony and everyone in the audience tonight that has testified, is I
think everyone agrees that the best place to get a street is where Basco Lane is today.
At least at the Phyllis Canal. Now, if the trees are there or not, maybe the road doesn't
go right exactly where -- but the crossing needs to happen where Basco Lane is. So, if
we can get -- and the applicant seems to have made some concession to say we are
not trying to hold this up, but there is this easement out there that also has two property
owners that we haven't seen anything from, so I think until we see something in writing
from them saying, yes, in fact, we will allow a public street to go there or something,
that's the issue that's still in my mind is -- he's relinquishing his third of that, but the
other two-thirds can put the kibosh on it. So--
Borup: Now, who haven't we heard from?
Hood: Well, there is -- and I don't know all the history, but back in 2001 --
Borup: I asked names was all.
Hood: Anderson and Thomas, was it?
Borup: Okay. They are not on the -- they are not on the --
Hood: They are not a part of this at all, but they put this easement together and kept a
right for that easement on Basco Lane. So, that's, really, in my mind, if that issue can
be worked out, that they can allow a street to go -- to get to the Aldape property, a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 89 of 90
collector road stubbed or partially constructed by this applicant or however that that
works out. That's not even, really, what I'm concerned more, it's more getting that
crossing there and who owns that even doesn't become as important as if can get the
crossing, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think that's -- that's what interests me as well. I'm
not so concerned to specify what the answer has to be, but it does include -- have to
include how there is going to be public access, public road access, to the Aldape
property. And the people are already in this room who can discuss that.
Borup: But this applicant -- if this applicant doesn't own that property, they can't
construct a public road here if there not a legal -- I mean if there is not a proper right of
way.
Zaremba: I'm not even sure it needs to be constructed yet, but we need agreement
from everybody that --
Borup: That they will have something to their north property line.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Yes. I think we agree with that.
Rohm: At least across the property that --
Newton-Huckabay: We have that. It's right here.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Then, the other question I would have is that on the annexation, if there is
contiguous property that is owned, should that be excluded.
Zaremba: It should not be excluded. If it's under same or similar ownership of other
parcels, it should be included. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-004 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6,
2006, to give applicant and neighbors opportunity to work out some issues and staff the
opportunity to incorporate some of those ideas into a revised staff report.
Moe: Is that the end of your motion?
Zaremba: That's the end of the motion.
Moe: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 90 of 90
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-004 to the regularly scheduled
meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: We need one more motion.
Zaremba: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close tonight's Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
~I III I Dt.
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTE'
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY C~ERK
t\t..,