2005 10-06
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 6. 2005
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 6, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay and
Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Mike
Cole, Joe Guenther and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolIMCall Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to our regularly scheduled meeting
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for October 6, 2005. We will begin
with a roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: First item on the agenda -- or the next item is the adoption of the agenda and
we will take all of these items in order, however, for any of you that are interested in
Irvine Subdivision, those are Items 7, 8 and 9, there is still some items to be finished
with lTD. They are almost there. So, our only action on Irvine Subdivision will be to
continue it to our next meeting -- our next regular meeting, which is October 20th. We
will take no substantive discussion on that one. All other items, it appears, are actually
going to get discussed tonight. So, if I hear no objections, we will consider the agenda
adopted. So be it.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of August 18, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of September 1, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of September 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 2 of 85
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
05~001 Request for a Minor Modification of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero lot
frontages for Paramount Subdivision No. 9 by Paramount
Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North
Meridian Road & North Linder Road:
Zaremba: No. 3 is the Consent Agenda, consisting of three different sets of minutes
and one Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and I, actually, have a comment on
two of the minutes. I will go first and, then, ask if anybody else has any. On the
minutes for the meeting of September 1, on page two, about three-quarters of the way
down the page, there is a statement attributed to Commissioner Mae, he says no and,
then, the next one says Newton-Huckabay. Actually, I said that. That should be
Zaremba. And on the same minutes --
Newton-Huckabay: It was probably just a really profound statement.
Zaremba: I would be happy to give you credit for it. On page 12 of also the September
1 st notes, the very bottom section, again, it's me speaking -- not the bottom line, but the
next line above it, the beginning of the sentence there says if they make at chance -- the
C should be a G. If they make a change. That's just a small typo. Then, on the
minutes for September 15th, on page one, right below where item two starts, I am
speaking and one, two, three, four, five, six -- about the seventh line down, the first is
Pinebridge. The date should be January 19th, not 29th. On page two, also September
15th, the first time that I am speaking, about the sixth or seventh line down across, it
says that should be a straight of way and that, actually, should be straight of way,
meaning a roadway that doesn't curve. So, straightaway should be put in there. Those
are my only comments. Other Commissioners?
Rohm: No comments.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, I would entertain a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda, with two minutes amended.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with amendments as stated.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 3 of 85
Zaremba: All right. We are ready to get right into the Pubic Hearing portion of our
meeting for tonight and let me start with describing our procedure for those of you who
don't come to our meetings very often. The applicant and our professional staff have
already spent quite a bit of time together going over each application and each subject
and we begin our presentation with our staff giving us an overview -- us and you an
overview of where the project is, what the project is, how it complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances that affect it. They are neither advocating, nor
-- they are neither for or against the project, they are just describing how it does or does
not comply with the rules that we all must follow. Following that, the applicant will be
given 15 minutes for them and their staff or any other supporting people that they need
to either answer any questions raised by the staff or describe anything else they think
we need to know about the project. Following that is when we open it up for public
testimony, all of you. We ask that you keep your remarks concise, if you would. We
end up going pretty late sometimes and, please, confine your remarks to about three
minutes. We do make an exception to that. If there is a spokesman -- and an example
would a president of a homeowners association, who has other people in the audience
for whom he or she is speaking, we do allow the spokesman ten minutes and, then, we
ask that other people just respond that they have been spoken for. We appreciate that.
Then, after all the public testimony has been given, we ask the applicant to have been
taking notes during that and come back up and respond to anything that they can help
us resolve that's been raised. And, then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing,
discuss it, and make our recommendation to the City Council, where, again, there will
be a Public Hearing, but, theoretically, with more issues solved.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: AZ 05-033 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: PP 05-032 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single-family residential building lots
and 7 common area lots on 2.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Under Road:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: CUP 05-036
Request for a Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development to allow
reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square
footage for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Under
Road:
Zaremba: Okay. With that being said, I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ
05-033, PP 05-032, and CUP 05-036. All of these relate to Banff Subdivision and there
have been some revisions since we talked about this last time, so we will ask for the
staff to give us a report, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 4 of 85
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this subdivision is off of Linder Road, just
north of Waltman Court. The site is 3.02 acres for the annexation, which is to the
centerline of the road, 2.87 acres for the preliminary plat. The applicant has submitted
an amended plat as shown here. With this they have tried to address the connections
to the north by putting in the modified Snoopy design for the correction at the western
portion of the property, as well as there is two lots missing from this design that were
included with the previous analysis of Banff Subdivision. With that staff is still
recommending denial based on the fact that this is still too dense and does not fit into
the character of the neighborhood. The second fact of the matter is that this is not an
in-fill subdivision and doesn't qualify for this type of higher density. The narrowness of
the site also precludes a little bit of a development potential of the area. The property to
the north and south, it's going to be difficult to develop for them as well. And so,
generally, the design of the site does not adequately address a lot of the comprehensive
issues for too many houses near too low density of lots at -- at this time. If you have
any questions of staff, ['II feel free to answer them, but staff is still recommending denial
of this design.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions at this point? Okay. Thank you. We will
have the applicant come forward, please.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. Happy to be back in front of you again tonight. Last time we
met there were basically seven items that I needed to take care of. Kind of had a
laundry list of things to take care of and just to review what those were and, then, I'll
address Joe's comments. The first thing was is we needed to figure out the boundary
survey. If you remember, Jerry Hihath, the neighbor to the south, came and testified
that there was a problem with the boundary survey and after the meeting got in contact
with Jerry, Jerry and I went out and met on the site one evening with the surveyor from
W.H. Pacific. We found out where all the pins were. We walked the site together and,
then, we walked the back of the property together and it turns out the boundary was
accurate. Mr. Hihath said that his dad and one of the Van Hess family had actually
walked that off with a 12 foot tape measure many years ago and thafs where they put
the fence and that fence was within about three inches of what the opinions were, so he
thought that was kind of funny that they came that close with a 12 foot tape measure
way back when. The second thing that we needed to take care of is that when we last
met you guys felt that the project was a little bit too dense and some of the discussion
was centered on that, was taking out two more lots. As you remember, the first time we
had this design we had 21 lots, as it says on the overhead. Then, we reduced it down
to 18 and, then, we got two more taken out since the last time we met down, it's down to
16, and that's what's represented on this map in front of you tonight. We have taken
one from the north and one from the south. And during that discussion we talked a little
bit about this open space, what should happen to this open space. There was some
discussion about not reducing this open space. It was reduced by less a thousand feet,
but over 2,000 feet was added at the other end and that was just to make these wider
and to add a wider lot on the corner right here. So, that was one of the discussion
items. The third item was talking about the redevelopment of the property to the north.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 5 of 85
Staff had asked us to modify this hammerhead with the Snoopy. We tried to do what
staff has asked us to do, I recognize in the staff report that the staff would like to see
this modified again. We, like in the past, we have had no problem providing access to
that property to the north and we feel that the layout that we presented to you at the last
hearing, that staff has someplace still, had to give it back to the city at that time, to give
this 66 foot wide piece of property four lots in the future. That was to provide access at
this point for two lots and access down on the east end for two lots. And that was
discussed and I think there wasn't a whole lot of other ways to develop that piece of
property. We did try again to meet with those people, had the real estate agent go out
and say we'd like to purchase this property or purchase a portion of the property. They
are not interested in selling. One of the things you had asked us to do was to try to
work with them. The fourth item was you wanted to make sure that the plat reflected a
15-foot rear setback line around the perimeter. At that time when we submitted the last
plat it said ten feet and we have corrected that to now say 15 feet around the perimeter.
On the planned development you could not have a reduced perimeter setback and so
we fixed that on this plat. The fifth item was open space. Talked about that a little bit.
Did not reduce the open space. In fact, we have added more open space to this project
since we last met. There was discussion about the fire department restricting parking
on this street to have no parking and there was some discussion at that time as to what
the fire department would allow and we have modified the street section to be 29 feet
from face to face and so there would be parking allowed on one side of the street. The
seventh thing you asked us to do was to hold another neighborhood meeting, which we
did, we held another neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago. We met with the
property owners to the north side of this -- not the immediate north, but the large home
with the cul-de-sac lot. And we met with the Hihaths again, that's the property owners
to the south, and the Laceys, the owners of this house -- or staying in this house were
there. We had a meeting at their house. Sat down and discussed this and general
consensus was! is this layout's better than what the previous layouts have been. And
so after we had that discussion, there was a little bit more discussion with the Hihaths
as to what they want to do with their property in the future. They recognize that their
property to the south is going to redevelop in the future at some point and what happens
with this property affects them. Joe mentioned that it would be very hard to redevelop
the property to the south if there is a stub street at this location and just a differing of
opinions there. With us and staff, I guess, we felt that this location for the stub street is
appropriate, because it allows for the depth lots to be appropriate as it comes down. If
we were to put it in the middle it would basically guide their development more so than
what this is. This puts the access road down. It's a deep enough lot that they can come
in and back down it, they don't have to drag a street directly down to Waltman. A
couple other things that were of concern at that time. Joe, could you go forward on this
-- from this slide? There we go. Some of the discussion items that we also talked about
at that time -- there has been a few revisions -- that this is the only access in and out of
this property and since that time the Planning and Zoning staff has met with the City
Council to discuss an alternative access out of this property. And, basically, all these
properties to have a secondary access out. They have met with the property owner that
will provide an emergency vehicle access out of this area that would provide a
secondary emergency vehicle access and they have met with this person and he has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 6 of 85
agreed to provide an emergency vehicle access with that site. And so Steve Siddoway,
under the direction of the Mayor, went out and did that. So, that's been taken care of.
So, there will be a secondary emergency vehicle access off of Linder and Linder would
not be the only way back out to Franklin and the only way out of the subdivision. Again,
these are a little bit smaller than you have got in the surrounding area, but it's the first
property to come in on this side of the road without a whole lot of density -- without a
whole huge lot and that's because there are existing county lots. This piece of property
is going to be developed in the future. The property kitty-corner from this has
redeveloped to 5,000 square foot lots. We are asking for 4,000 square foot lots and
larger. There is not a great difference in the sizes from the subdivision kitty-corner to
our subdivision. I think we have tried to address all the comments that you have made
and you asked us to work with. I'd ask if you have any questions of us at this time, see
if there is any public testimony, and, then, I can finish my comments after your
questioning, if there is anything that needs to be covered at that point. Ask for your
approval tonight. We are thankful for the opportunity we have had to work this out and
to meet with the neighbors and discuss these things. I think we have come to a point
now where the neighbors can work with this and, hopefully, the city can, too. Ask if you
have any questions at this time.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. McKinnon? Okay. Thank you. We
will move on to public testimony. And, actually, nobody signed up for these issues, but
there is an opportunity, if anybody failed to sign up and has something to add, this
would be the time to do it. I see nobody moving. Okay. In that case, there is really no
notes or comment for Mr. McKinnon to make. Staff have any further comment?
Guenther: We were hoping that Steve could confirm that the emergency access has
been taken care of, but we haven't -- we don't have that information confirmed. We
know that he has been addressing the issue.
Zaremba: You're referring to Steve Siddoway?
Guenther: Steve Siddoway on the emergency access.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any question or discussion?
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: If he hasn't confirmed that emergency access, that doesn't prevent
us from making a recommendation on this, does it?
Guenther: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: My opinion on that would be that the emergency access they are working on
needs to go fOlWard whether this project happens or not. It doesn't just affect this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 7 of 85
project, it affects the whole neighborhood, which is currently a cul-de-sac south of
Franklin.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I have been actually working with Steve
on that. We are in the process getting a legal description and working with the property
owner to get the easement. So, it's in process. It's not necessarily a done deal, but it
looks like we are moving forward. One thing you might want to consider, if you are
going to recommend approval on this, is you could make that a condition, that it's,
unfortunately, out of the hands of this developer, but if it's a requirement that you're
going to impose, you can certainly consider that.
Zaremba: Thank you. All right. Well, I'm willing to venture the first comments and,
then, we will see what discussion we can raise. Would you put the aerial view back on
the other picture? Thank you. Even though at our last hearing our direction to the staff
was to come back with conditions for approval, I am very noticeable that their continued
recommendation is that this is premature and that there needs to be a much bigger
picture of what's going to happen in this whole area and I mentioned it last time and at
the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself. At the time that both Meridian and the
valley around us continue to develop, we will see Linder, even though now it's a very
quiet cul-de-sac kind of an area, Linder will at some time be five lanes. There will be a
crossing across the interstate on Linder and that brings up the point that Linder is a
major north -- and will be a major north and south thoroughfare. At the moment it's the
only other crossing of the river to north of us that has a road through Meridian. At some
day we are hoping Highway 16 will, but that's a long way off as well. Going south, once
it does make the cross over the interstate, it goes directly into the center of Kuna, which
has just begun it's growth spurt and is nowhere near built out. Linder is not going to be
the quiet little street that we see it being now. That being the case, it being a major
arterial at some point, I am very concerned of having any accesses directly to Linder.
And staff didn't go this far, but my feeling is that this whole section needs to come in
with a comprehensive plan that actually shows only an access to Waltman. Some day
Waltman will go -- connect somewhere east and somewhere -- there will be another
connection here. But my biggest concern is 15, 20 years from now Linder could very
well be as heavily traveled as Eagle is today and we will be wanting to limit access to
Linder. My feeling is it is premature to consider -- unfortunately, when you consider a
small property by itself, there are constraints and I think Mr. McKinnon has done an
excellent job of viewing just this property and dealing with those constraints, but I don't
feel it's in the best interest of the city to view only this property and my feeling is we
need to see this whole group come in as one plan and only have access to Waltman.
That's my statement. ~ny comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 8 of 85
Rohm: That would probably -- Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: That would probably be preferential, but it's my feeling that this parcel cannot be
held in -- and I don't mean this to sound derogatory -- but hostage to the adjacent
properties and they have contacted them and tried in good faith to move forward and
include those properties in development and the neighbors have chosen, for whatever
reason -- and they have the right to deny at this time to develop, but it's my feeling that
this parcel, if, in fact, they are ready to move forward, shouldn't be denied based upon
their neighbor's lack of interest. That's my position.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I feel the lot sizes probably are smaller than maybe would be desirable there.
This is in the Comp Plan designated as medium density, three to eight units. They are
five and a half. I mean so far as that aspect, it's right in there, which would be expected.
But to me probably the biggest thing -- maybe we should have said something at the
last meeting, rather than saying you need to do this, this, this and this when they come
here and comply with it all and, then, we say, well, sorry, even though you did
everything we asked you to do.
Zaremba: I did make a similar statement at the last meeting.
Borup: Right. Okay. And I -- yeah, I'm concerned about the long term. I mean Linder
is not going to be the traffic that Eagle is. I mean unless we get interstate access and
that's not in the plan. It's certainly going to be heavily traveled, but more so than now.
But I don't know if it's quite in the same category. I mean it would be nice that --
Zaremba: It will at least be an arterial and we generally try to limit access to arterials.
Borup: Right. I understand. But still in my thinking, maybe something should have
been said last time, if there were additional things that should have been on their list to
work on.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I would probably mirror somewhat of Commissioner Borup's comments in regards
to -- the lot sizes and whatnot, I know the last meeting when we had discussed this, we
did ask for some increases in sizes and such and, yes, the applicant has done pretty
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 9 of 85
much what we had discussed in our last meeting. I would like to have seen some lots
just a little bit larger than they are at the present time. But, at the same point, when we
discuss access points and whatnot, I'm not so sure that I'm opposed at all to having an
access point off Linder at this point. If, in fact, that entire area does develop, I would
anticipate it would be good to have two access points, one to Linder and one to
Waltman, and basically this is the -- basically the center point of that and he is
somewhat noting access to both of the other lots through that. So, if anything, I think he
has come forward and taken care of pretty much everything we had discussed in our
last meeting, other than I still feel I would have liked to have seen some of his lots sizes
a little larger, because of the fact it is in the R-8 zone. But other than that I have no
problem with this project.
Borup: Just an additional comment on that lot size. Yeah, I'd like to see them larger,
too. I think the widths are a proper size for what they are planning in there. It's the
depth, in my mind, that's the problem and this site really doesn't accommodate deeper
lots.
Moe: Yeah. That's true.
Borup: Unless the street went down one side, then, they would be really deep.
Moe: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess it's my turn.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we think -- is it because of these lots down here -- I mean,
obviously, these ones around it, but are those likely to redevelop at some point -- so that
these lots here and these lots here that are what -- so concern us about the area around
it? As far as the density.
Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, typically with a planned development we
see a transitional nature of lots and this site just is not large enough to be
accommodating a planned development. That's, essentially, what staff's -- one of staff's
concerns with this site is. Yes, the lot sizes in here are approaching 10,000 square feet.
These are approaching 10,000 square feet and above. These are similar size. And
there is the one portion down off of the interstate that is 5,000 square foot lots. All of
the subdivision in here is one acre or better lots. And the general nature of the
neighborhood is roughly the three to three and a half dwelling units to the acre. The
5,000 square foot lots down here were done under a planned development and they
were also given many amenities for additional open space and the things that are
accompanying a planned development for reduction of lot size, lot widths, and building
size. So, that is one of the other concerns that we brought out in the staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: Was the lack of amenities? The lack of amenities?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 1 0 of 85
Guenther: No. The lack of transitional nature between these 4,000 square foot lots and
lots that are approximately twice the size of those.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I don't really have anything of substance to add to the
comments that have already been made.
Zaremba: I will ask of staff -- I guess this sort of puts you on the spot -- it appears that
I'm going to be outvoted on this and that the Commission, as a group, essentially, is
going to recommend approval to the City Council. Are there conditions that should be
added that were not -- staff continued to recommend that this be denied and did you
include conditions for approval?
Guenther: We do not have conditions of approval, so we would -- if the board -- if the
Commission's recommendation is for approval, we would need to be directed in order to
provide conditions of approval. Public Works has not made comment on this at all and
they need to have the opportunity to review this site for their concerns. With that, the
motion that was made at the last hearing was not to provide conditions of approval, but
to see the revised design as per your comments of the last meeting. So, conditions of
approval were not prepared for this meeting, because we weren't directed to provide
conditions of approval.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I intend to go with the staff's recommendation of denial on this. I
think this is a really complicated planning problem here and I don't feel comfortable
moving it on myself. So, if there is a question of whether or not you're going to be out
voted --
Zaremba: As much as I'm happy to hear, we are at this point anticipating a two to three
vote, which would pass it, so we still need to -- unless we have other discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't get the feeling that Commissioner Moe was in favor of it.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, question of staff. Public Works has not reviewed this project?
Guenther: Public Works has been -- has received a transmittal for this project, but they
have not given planning staff any conditions of approval to incorporate into the staff
report.
Zaremba: The Public Hearing IS still open and Mr. McKinnon appears to want to
respond.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 11 of 85
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have had this for a long
time and we've had numerous discussions, we have sat down with Public Works and we
sat down with P&Z. These aren't new issues. They have been discussed. The issues
with Public Works. There are some comments from Public Works, obviously, no
conditions of approval, because it was a recommendation for denial, and they would
have to work some up for that. But we have had numerous discussions about the lift
station that's up there and how that would work, the depth of the sewer and there is
some things that we have discussed. It's been in the city's hands and we -- you know, it
was a month and a half ago, two months ago, that we met last to discuss this and so
there should have been adequate time to be able to take a look at it. A couple things to
keep in mind with this project that Joe mentioned. One of them is that this is too small
for a planned development and, obviously, we agree with that. The only way to make
things work under the old ordinance was to do a planned development for a project like
this and that was one of the reasons you guys adopted the new Unified Development
Code was to quit having to do a planned development on every single project. To put
this in perspective, if we were to withdraw this application, bring it back to you with
paired housing, we would not have to ask for a planned development on this project.
Four thousand square foot lots are the minimum lot size in the R-8 zone. Fifty feet of
frontage or 40 feet of frontage if you do a paired housing. This could come back to you
with paired housing, meet the minimum standards for all the requirements and would
not have to come back as a planned development to you. We felt -- and we discussed
this last time -- was that a paired product is not as nice as a detached product. A
detached product was more agreeable to the neighbors. They felt that that was better
than having duplexes or attached housing on this site. But this would meet all the
requirements for the R-8 zone under the new Unified Development Code. And so this
was not -- this would meet all the side setbacks, front and rear setbacks of the new
Unified Development Code for the R-8 zone, which would comply with the medium
density designation on the Comp Plan which is three to eight units per acre. This falls
right in the middle of that. Your comments about having a single solitary access on
Waltman would create some additional concerns. You would be creating another cul-
de-sac situation with only one access out. You would have to provide emergency
vehicle access out onto the Under Road area, plus there is an existing house there.
There is a number of existing houses that front onto that. Ada County Highway District
cannot remove those access points and so there will be one access point to the existing
house that would remain there forever in perpetude. However, we have included on the
site plan a driveway that would come around the backside of that house and so you're
still limiting it to one access point. We provided the one access point to the south with a
stub street, which would be able to provide those together. As you have worked in the
City of Meridian -- if we could start over with a blank slate in the City of Meridian and
have somebody come in and master plan the entire community, it would look vastly
different than it does today. One of the problems that you run into in planning a project
is you can only work with those things that you're given. You can't say I'm going to take
all these additional pieces of property and we are going to hold onto them until we can
assemble everything. It doesn't always work that way. We have worked with the
property owner to the south. The property owners to the north don't want to work with
us. We have tried as best as we can to provide access for them in the future to be able
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 12 of 85
to redevelop that piece of property. To the south ACHD required us to put a stub street
in for increased connectivity. City staff did not want a stub street to the south. They
don't want that to be interconnected. If you remember there was a lot of discussion at
the last hearing that the city staff did not want these two parcels interconnected, they'd
rather have it end and not have it connect. We met with ACHD and ACHD said, yes,
you will interconnect these two pieces of property and we picked the best spot for
redevelopment for the property to the south in the future. We have worked with that
property owner. He recognizes that in the future they will be redeveloping this piece of
property. Another thing to keep in mind is the transitional nature of this property.
Transition was talked an awful lot about by staff. We are not bumping up against this
subdivision or this subdivision or transitioning to this subdivision or this subdivision. We
have got two pieces of property that are residential in nature right now that we are
transitioning to and we have one that's a school site. A school site does not have a
requirement for a transition. To the north you have residential property, which will be
one neighbor, which would be the existing house, you will have a driveway that comes
in behind it. And on the south you have a large piece of property that will develop in the
future at a density that will be much higher that it is right now. So, we have done the
best we can with this piece of property, with the design that we have. We can't comp
plan the entire thing, because we don't have access to those people and have access to
a street, unless we wait for that property to come in. We'd ask that you approve this
project. It will allow the interconnectivity in the future. We believe that the lot sizes
meet and exceed the requirements of the current code. When this was submitted the
Unified Development Code was not -- was not applicable, because it had not been
adopted by you or the City Council at that time, so we had to go the planned
development route. We are not asking for anything that's not allowable under the
existing code, other than we would like to have detached housing, rather than paired
housing to accommodate the neighbors. With that I'd ask if you have any additional
questions and I can sit down.
Zaremba: Commissioners? Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: My question is of staff. If Public Works hasn't submitted comments or direction
associated with this proposal, how can we move forward with a recommendation of
approval if we don't even know what their comments might be?
Guenther: Commissioner Rohm, prior to Mr. McKinnon standing up, my second portion
to that comment was that if you wanted to recommend approval, we could have
conditions of approval for you at the next hearing.
Rohm: Thank you. I don't see how we can act on it either direction without comments
from Public Works. I think if Public Works comes back and says, you know what, this
just won't work, then, that adds substance to existing staff report. But if Public Works
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 13 of 85
comes back and says this is the way this will work with the development as proposed,
then, at least we have something we can get -- go yea or nay on, but my--
Borup: We can go yea or nay right now.
Rohm: -- personal opinion is that from the last time that this was heard, that we would
have had Public Works comments as part of the staff report tonight and I would hope
that we could get that next time.
Borup: Or maybe tonight?
Rohm: If we can table this and give Public Works an opportunity to kick it around and,
then, provide additional testimony after you -- I don't like to put you on the spot, quite
honestly.
Cole: Commissioner Rohm?
Zaremba: My opinion on that would be that there are probably engineering drawings
that he needs to sit in his office and look at and I'm not sure that --
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mike.
Cole: Thank you. Since this staff report was a recommendation for denial, there have
been no conditions placed on it by Public Works, Fire Department, Parks, Sanitation.
To place conditions of approval on a project that has been recommended for denial is
not the standard. I think that Joe could explain this better as the planner. This is pretty
standard practice on projects that are recommended for denial not to have conditions of
approval placed on them by the agencies. With that being said, Public Works has sat
down with the applicant, we have discussed issues, we have reviewed the project, we
don't have our conditions for approval here tonight. I see no outstanding issues with
this as we have reviewed it, we just do not have something formalized, wordified, and
typed and in place at this time.
Zaremba: And my assessment of your statement is continuing this until the end of this
evening would not solve that problem.
Cole: No, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6. 2005
Page 14 of 85
Rohm: I don't think that it would be fair to this development to deny it without having
seen the balance of input from staff, including the Public Works, and I think that we
gave Mr. McKinnon a laundry list last time they came before us, of which they have
addressed all the issues and, ultimately, that doesn't necessarily guarantee approval,
but I think that they have gone a long way to meet us halfway and I would like to
recommend that we continue this one more meeting and get comments from the
balance of staff and other departments, so we can have a complete report to act upon
at the next meeting. I think that's the right thing to do.
Zaremba: Just for the sake of discussion, considering the way I'm pretty sure I'm going
to vote, I think it would just be stringing the applicant along. So, we will take a vote. If a
motion is made to continue this -- my preference would be to close the Public Hearing
and move for denial. I am not going to make a motion, however, as the chairman. And
I will entertain the first motion that comes to the microphone.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing --
Zaremba: If you want to continue it -- closing it would mean we are going to vote to
deny it tonight.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-033, PP
04-032, and CUP 05-036.
Zaremba: To October 20th?
Rohm: To the next scheduled -- regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Zaremba: As part of that motion, do you wish to direct staff to prepare conditions for
approval?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and second.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Thank you for the second. Now we have a motion and a second. All in favor
please say aye. Opposed? Nay. We have two in favor and three against continuing.
That motion does not carry.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 15 of 85
Zaremba: The chair would entertain a substitute or alternate motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number PP
05-032, AZ 05-033 for Banff Subdivision, as presented in the staff report dated
September 27th, 2005, with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and preliminary plat
dated September 15th, 2005.
Zaremba: One comment, discussion on the motion before we hear a second. In fact, jf
we are moving to deny, the preliminary plat is something that we deny outright, not a
recommendation to the city. The other two would be a recommendation.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman? If you're going to make a motion, you need to close the
Public Hearing.
Zaremba: That's true. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-032
and AZ 05-033.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Motion to close the three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to repeat my motion for denial?
Zaremba: Wait just a minute. Let's confirm. I believe we had three ayes and two nays;
is that correct?
Moe: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the public hearings are closed. Mr. Baird, you appear to -- okay.
You looked anxious to say something.
Baird: Well, actually, just --
Zaremba: You're just listening closely.
Baird: No. I just wanted to confirm for the record that the chair and the people who
were making the vote on this interpreted the motion to include all three public hearings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 16 of 85
Zaremba: Yes. To close.
Baird: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: My mistake. Sorry about that.
Zaremba: Okay. I believe I would do them one at a time.
Newton-Huckabay: Recommend denial one at a time?
Zaremba: Yes. And on the preliminary plat it's not a recommendation, it's an actual
motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: One moment. We have a question from the clerk. No? Okay. Sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council -- oh. I move to
deny -- and this is the PP; right? The preliminary plat? PP 05-032.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion to deny PP 05-032 and a second. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? It appears that that vote was also three to two in favor. Three in favor,
two against, so that motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number AZ
05-033 for Banff Subdivision, as presented in the report, dated September 27th, 2005,
with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and preliminary plat dated September 16th,
2005.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? It
appears we have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS:
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number CUP
05-036, for Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report, dated September 27th,
with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and Preliminary plat dated September 16th,
2005. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 17 of 85
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed?
We have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries as well.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Item 7:
Item 8:
Item 9:
Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: AZ 05-038
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone
for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of
Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: PP 05-037
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 200 building lots and 21 common
lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by
Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and
Chinden Boulevard:
Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: CUP 05-039
Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single
family detached residential units and single family attached residential
units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Zaremba; All right. Thank you all very much. The next items on the agenda I will open
the public hearings for AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039, all relating to Irvine
Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those to October 20th, '05.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Let's see. I move the public hearings on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-
039, be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning to
October 20th? Is that correct?
Zaremba: Yes.
Moe: End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 18 of 85
Item 10:
Public Hearing: PP 05~042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3
building lots and 1 common lot on 10.85 acres in a I-L zone for Weed and
Pest Control Campus Subdivision by Ada County - on East Pine
Avenue west of North Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We are up to Item 10. I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-042 for
Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision by Ada County. And we will begin with the
staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Weed and
Pest Control Campus Subdivision is a mouthful and it's also located over off of Pine
Street and just north of the Union Pacific Railroad. The intersection here -- this is
Commercial. ACHD does have a portion of Commercial that extends through this
property, that comes through to the adjacent property there. There is two significant
features on this site. One is the Five Mile Creek, which is the significant feature, with a
small flood plane in that area. The other feature is the Gerber Lateral, which it comes
down through on the Union Pacific Railroad. The conditions of approval do state that
the applicant should work with Nampa-Meridian in order determine if they will be tiled or
not. Staff is comfortable with either leaving them open or having them tiled based on
that and that's, essentially, the way that it's worded. The Comp Plan also calls for this
to be mixed use regional -- or mixed use community and with that there is another site
specific condition of approval to have all uses on the site come back and be heard as
conditional uses. That is an underlying issue that we have with that zone, with all
mixed-use comprehensive designations. Also with the comprehensive designation
there is planned a multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek system. In past
developments and past approvals this board and -- or this Commission and the City
Council have realigned a lot of different issues, so that the pathway should be included
on Pine Street as bike paths in both directions, as well as on Locust Grove in both
directions. If you zoom this out larger, there is no pathways in this area to connect to
and, therefore, there would be no sense of putting a pathway in, as well as Locust
Grove is going to be -- Locust Grove Road will be the crossing of Interstate 1-84 for the
pathway system, which, obviously, will be on the road anyhow. 80, the pathway system
should be able to connect through here, it will just be on the road at -- in this location, so
the applicant would not be required to do any multi-use pathways. When you look at
the site, there is three lots on this approximate ten and a half -- or 10.8 acres. With that
Commercial is outlined here, but with the landscape plan the applicant has submitted
there was not a ten foot landscape buffer included on there. That would need to be
amended prior to final plat. And staff is comfortable with that actually being installed
upon the certificate of zoning compliance approval, rather than having that installed at
the final plat stage as normal landscape buffers are. That is the same with the
landscape buffer on the Union Pacific Railroad. With that, I believe I have addressed all
the conditions that are significant and I will stand for questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 19 of 85
Moe: No.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to come forward, please.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Daren
Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. I think Joe's done a good job of
going through the particulars this project. Ada County does own the site and they do
intend to develop it with uses strictly for the county. The first use will be the Weed and
Pest Control Campus, oddly enough. Some of you may realize that they have sold their
building over -- over here on Meridian Road and need a new place to go and this will be
it. It is slated to go on Lot NO.2 -- I guess that's Lot NO.3 right north of the new road,
so you will see landscaping at that time along that extension of Commercial Court. You
will see the conditional use application in about a month, probably, for that use. So,
with that 1111 just keep it short and sweet and if you have any questions 1111 take those
now.
Moe: Do you agree to all the conditions on the staff report?
Fluke: We do. Yeah.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: My comment would be that this property has come before us twice before
trying to convert it to a residential use and both times I believe we have recommended
denial. I personally am much happier to see this application come for keeping it an I-L
and developing it as I-L. I think that's evidenced by the fact that, apparently, we don't
have any of the neighbors here to complain about the change. We have no one else
signed up to speak. So, personal opinion is I appreciate this new application.
Commissioners? Okay. We did not have anybody signed up, but if -- again, if anybody
is here that cares to make a comment. I see nobody moving, so we will consider the
subject thoroughly discussed. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-042.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 20 of 85
Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 05-042, as
presented in the staff report, dated October 6th, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated
August 3rd, 2005, with the conditions as noted.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11 :
Item 12.
Item 13:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
312.67 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O and R-4 zones for Volterra
Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP - southwest and northwest
corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 613
building lots (540 detached single-family residential, 9 commercial, 11
office) and 53 common area lots on 232.32 acres in proposed R-4, C-G
and L-O zones for Volterra Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP
- southwest and northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan
Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 205
building lots (134 detached single-family residential, 54 attached single-
family residential (patio homes), 13 commercial, 4 office) and 22 common
area lots on 80.36 acres in proposed C-G, L-O and R-4 zones for Volterra
Subdivision South by Primeland Development, LLP - southwest and
northwest corners of North Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a mixed use development that includes
reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, house
size, setbacks and increased block lengths for Volterra Subdivision by
Primeland Development, LLP - southwest and northwest corners of North
Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
Zaremba: Thank you. We will now open the public hearings for AZ 05-040, PP 05-039,
PP 05-040 and CUP 05-041, all relating to Volterra Subdivision by Primeland
Development. And, once again, we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is just your standard
300 lot -- or 900 lot, 300 acre subdivision. I'm going to try to go ahead and touch on
most of the points. If I miss something, I will try to catch up at the end. I have got some
notes here, but it is a large site, so I'm going to try. This is a 312.67 -acre annexation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 21 of 85
request. Approximately 35 acres is for a general retail and service commercial zone, C-
G, You can see across Ten Mile Road there is some C-G that was zoned also in
Bridgetower and Volterra, This was actually a use exception, but they -- I mean in
Verona and Bridgetower. So, they are, basically, mirroring the same development with
commercial at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile. And, then, 19.27 acres is for
office zone kind of around the commercial zoning. And, then, the remainder 258-acres
is proposed for the R-4 low-density residential district. This site is located on both sides
of McMillan Road between Ten Mile and Black Cat. It actually spans the whole section
in that location. It is designated medium density residential for three quarters of it and
approximately this 80 acres over here is designated for low density residential. Just to
orient you even further, the city's wastewater treatment plant is in this location and that
designation of properties on the Comp Plan encompasses all of these properties here.
The surrounding vicinity is pretty agricultural in nature and rural still to this day, although
there are quite a few residential subdivisions on the east side of Ten Mile Road and
recently approved Bainbridge Subdivision that goes up to Chinden Boulevard just north
of the subject site. There are some existing acreage homes just to the south and west
of Volterra Subdivision and also there is an R-3 city subdivision to the southeast -- on
the southeast corner along Ten Mile Road, with a stub street and staff has included a
comment to extend that stub street into the property with the staff report. Most all of the
properties, as I mentioned, are zoned RUT in Ada County around this site. I think I'm
going to go ahead and just jump to the site plan and we can get into some of the
particulars with this development. I apologize, the subdivision was so big, the
preliminary plat was on about five or six pages. It makes it kind of messy when you try
to do that on a slide, so I just kind of grabbed this overall and we will try to touch on
some of the features with this development. The applicant is proposing to construct a
multi-use pathway along their residential collector that runs through approximately to the
half mile. It intersects Ten Mile and Black Cat at approximately the half-mile location.
There is no front-on housing along this entire mile stretch and there is a ten-foot wide
multi-use pathway. There is a 10.2-acre park that they are proposing here. It is
proposed to be a private park with some amenities near that road, a tot lot area,
swimming pool, restrooms, those types of things. This is your commercial area here
with office around it and, then, the residential pods on the outer part. The applicant did
submit two preliminary plats just primarily for tracking purposes for the city. They are in
two different sections. It is one development and does really complete this whole
intersection, but we request that they have a Volterra and a Volterra South, which would
be south of McMillan Road. Some of the other developments on -- or amenities on the
south, there is a smaller neighborhood park in the southern subdivision. The applicant
is proposing to leave the slough open, relocate a portion of it, and leave this slough
open, as well as the Lemp Canal or Settler's Canal along McMillan Road. That's a
pretty large lateral and they are also proposing to leave that open. The particulars of
the plats -- Volterra, which, again, is north of McMillan, includes 540 detached single
family lots, nine commercial lots, 11 office lots and 53 common lots and there are 232
acres on that northern portion. Volterra South contains 134 detached single-family lots
and 54 attached lots, Let me point those out real quick. The detached lots are in this
block here and I just wanted to kind of show you, because the lot sizes, to tell you the
truth, aren't much different than the detached lot sizes that you see throughout the rests
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 22 of 85
of the subdivision. Now, there are some larger lots around the perimeter, some pretty
good size lots adjacent to the county subdivision that takes up this area here. There are
also 13 commercial lots and four office lots and there is just over 80 acres there on the
south side. The applicant did also submit a Conditional Use Permit. They are asking
for some reductions to the R-4 standards, including lot size, street frontage, minimum
house size, and the side setback for the attached units. There is also a request for a
maximum block length variance, if you will -- or modification to our standard. Staff did in
the staff report -- and I want to talk on this now, although the applicant did address it in
their rebuttal letter that we got this afternoon from the applicant. Staff did make a
comment that we felt it was appropriate to have a micro-path connection in this location
here -- in this general location here that would generally align with the sidewalk to the
undeveloped property to the north. This block is about 1,500 feet in length and the
ordinance that this development was reviewed under allows a thousand foot block
length maximum. So, we thought it was appropriate to break up that block a little bit
with a micro-path. So, staff would ask that you make that a condition as well. The CUP
does request these properties be approved for office and commercial zoning as a use
exception. That will be going away -- or, actually, has gone away with the UDC, but
approximately 17 percent of the 312 acres are requested for zones that would not
otherwise be approved, because the Comprehensive Plan, again, does designate this
as medium density and low density residential. Staff is supportive of that, again,
because it mirrors this intersection and I think will complete that whole -- that area there.
The density proposed with this development is 2.3 dwelling units per acre, That's if you
take all 312 acres. If you exclude the areas proposed for office and commercial zoning,
the zoning is 2.8 dwelling units per acre. So, still in that low density category, if you will,
and only this portion is really designated as low density. The amenities -- I have talked
about the park and the some of the tot lots. They do have tot lots on both the north and
the south park areas. Multiple pathways and micro-paths. As you can kind of see,
there are connections between the pods with some of the micro-paths throughout the
development. And the open space and the clubhouse and swimming pool area. I think
I'm going to jump to the conditions of approval now and at the same time talk about the
applicant's letter that was submitted today. So, this is --
Moe: Mr. Chairman? If you don't mind?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I don't think we got copies of that letter. No. That was number 18.
Borup: That's for Bridgetower.
Moe: That's for Bridgetower. That was not for this hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yeah.
Hood: Commissioner Moe, Mr. Chairman, I do apologize, I just got this at lunch today,
so I can understand if the clerk didn't have a chance to get it to you. It was quite a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 23 of 85
lengthy staff report. There is 60 some pages, so -- but I did just get this this afternoon
myself. So, we can -- I don't know what the Commission wishes to do, but --
Zaremba: I assume we all got them, but it was very last minute. It was sitting on the
table here when I arrived and sat down.
Moe: No. That's for 18.
Zaremba: Oh, that's the wrong one. You're so right. Sorry. So, it wasn't sitting here.
All right. The applicant's written responses are always appreciated, always thorough,
and in the past when we have gotten them at the last minute, not through the applicant's
fault, it's just the process takes long enough that when the staff report is put out, if the
applicant takes a day or two to assimilate it and respond, we get it at the last minute.
Not really anybody's fault, it's just a matter of trying to do everything in quick timing. But
we have -- the other times that this has happened, we have gone ahead with the Public
Hearing and heard the testimony and, then, given ourselves a time to understand the
notes back and forth.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it known that none of us up here have that
letter and, therefore, he's somewhat reluctant to do that, I just want to make sure that
everyone knows that we don't have it and when the applicant does come up, I'm sure
she will be more than happy to address all those issues.
Newton-Huckabay: Why can't we get a copy?
Moe: Well, I agree there, too.
Zaremba: The clerk just left and I believe she may be making copies.
Moe: Okay. Great.
Borup: So, it makes sense to proceed ahead to me.
Moe: Oh, absolutely.
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I think--
Zaremba: I don't think that stops us from proceeding. It may stop us from making a
final decision tonight, but --
Hood: And I will go ahead and touch on the points of that letter and thank you for letting
me know that, because I probably would have assumed that you were following along
with me, so I appreciate that. But I will go ahead and touch on, basically, the bold that
the applicant has addressed in the letter and Becky can supplement or disagree or
whatever she wants to do with the rest of it, but I did just want to touch -- and you can --
I'm on B, conditions of approval in the staff report. The planning department are the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 24 of 85
ones I'm going to focus on, since those are the ones that I wrote. But 1.1.2 is also the
same as 1.1.2.B, which also applies to Volterra South. So, it's the same comment by
the applicant in both locations, it's just that site specific one applies to the north
subdivision and one applies to the subdivision on the south side.
Moe: What page would that be?
Hood: The new staff reports do not have page numbers, so it's Exhibit B, it's right after
the landscape plan, the last page of the landscape plan. If J had to guess, I would say
probably page --
Newton-Huckabay: Why don't they have page numbers, I'm sorry, anymore?
Hood: Technically these are exhibits with the new staff report. The staff report ends
kind of where your proposed motion is and, then, we attach all these as exhibits.
Zaremba: Could they be given a substitute page number, like A, B, C or D or
something?
Newton-Huckabay: A reference number.
Hood: I think we probably could work something out -- some numbering system to help,
especially when they get to be this big.
Zaremba: It would be quicker to find a page that you're on if we can index it some way.
Hood: And, generally, they do have footers as well and I had to take those out,
because it -- there was so many pages it was messing up the footer. So, I apologize
there is really no reference, it's just -- it's right after your landscape plan, last exhibit, is
where I'm starting.
Zaremba: Tell me again where we are headed. I missed that in the--
Hood: So, this is -- this is, basically, the second site-specific condition in both -- both
the preliminary plats for Volterra and Volterra South. 1.1.2 and 1.1.2.B, which is on a
subsequent page, but I'm just calling that out, so we don't have to go through it again on
the subsequent page.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hood: And this will also go hand-in-hand with one of the other comments in the Public
Works section having to do with their joint trench utility easement that they like to see on
the backside of the right of way and I guess to paraphrase the condition, it basically
requires -- requests that the applicant reverse -- they have got the trees planted on the
outside of the sidewalk, rather than between the curb and the sidewalk. They have
placed the trees on the other side of the sidewalk. So, basically, you have got a planter
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 25 of 85
strip with nothing but grass in it and they are proposing -- kind of proposing -- it's not
real clear either -- if they are actually doing swales or not. But this comment makes it
seem like they are doing swales along the roadside and the trees are placed in there,
that they have had problems having to water in those areas and, then, overwatering the
trees and so the trees are dying. Staff would still like to see the trees between the curb
and the face of the walk in the planter strip and maybe come up with a variety of -- a
species of trees that can handle a little bit more water than usual and also that will give
the utility companies areas on the backside of the sidewalk to put all of the cable lines,
the telephone lines, whoever else goes in those utility areas there. So, staff would just
request that that condition stay as is, actually. 1.1.4, jumping down a couple, and this
has do to with that micro-path I already touched on. Staff would also ask that that one
stay in place. If, in fact, it does stay in place, then, we will get the property to the north,
whether it be a school -- that's also what's been talked about. Just so you are aware,
we did a pre-ap with some folks on that property. We have not -- the city has not
accepted an application on that property, so that is un-platted, undeveloped property at
this point in time. So, any stub or micro-path that we put there can be extended in the
future. We have not lost that opportunity. So, I'm going to next jump to 1.1.9 and
fencing. This is probably the biggest change -- or I guess -- that I -- you know, for a
subdivision of 900 plus lots, this is probably the biggest issue that we are going to have
and that's -- and fencing is the issue and I think that's a good thing, that just revolves
around fencing. But with the new ordinance we have adopted city code that requires
fencing adjacent to common areas to be restricted either four feet in height if it's going
to be solid, or six feet in height if it's going to be open vision. So, wrought iron or chain
link even or something that you can see through. And this has to do with the police
department being able to see into these areas, them being hidden, and them not having
eyes on those areas and, then, becoming problematic, safety hazards and different
kinds of unlawful activities going on back there. So, staff would recommend that -- the
applicant is proposing, just so you know, a six-foot high semi-privacy fence along the
open space lots and, then, a four foot high semi-privacy fence with two foot of lattice on
top, which, again, the ordinance no longer allows. It's either open vision or solid at four
foot or six feet for the open vision or four-foot solid. There is no two-foot lattice on top
anymore. Staff understands that this is what they did in Bridgetower. It would match
what has been constructed there. However, for safety reasons we just think that it
would be best to have the fencing standards comply with current code and current code
being the code that was adopted last month, so that a condition that 1.1.9 be revised to
read that along all micro-paths and open spaces, that the fencing be restricted to those
heights and that -- and I just want to let you know, too, and the applicant know, that
those are not restricted to the landscape buffers or along street buffers. So it's not
intended that along streets a six foot high solid fencing cannot go up, it's really those
areas that are that -- that are the park here, we'd like to see either the four foot or the six
foot around these lots here. It's not saying that you can't put up a six foot high fence
along this collector boulevard or any of the collector streets or any of the local streets,
for that matter, but it's in these areas here where the city would like to have eyes on
those areas and would like to put those fencing requirements or restrictions on this
development. I'm going to jump now to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 26 of 85
Zaremba: Craig, before you move on, just to clarify, that would not apply to a little --
that's probably -- it's open space, but it's probably a drainage purpose --
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: -- a six-foot solid fence could go around something like that--
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: -- because it's clearly visible from the street.
Hood: If it's visible from the street, yes. And that would be -- we don't have a distance.
I mean you could maybe stop a patrol car here and this would still be visible from the
street, but you're getting a long ways away from these neighbors that can't see over
their fence and it's a long way away from the street. So, that one -- there is a lot of
those little pop out drainage areas that that would not apply. You could place a six-foot
fence to within ten feet of the right of way, you know, comply with those other
ordinances for the location of fence. But, yeah, back in those areas a six-foot fence
could happen. Again, it's a common -- defined as the common open spaces, so not
drainage areas, necessarily. And speaking of open spaces, 1.2.2, the applicant would
like to reselVe the right to install sand at the bottom of some of the drainage ponds.
Code does not allow developers to count drainage areas that do contain sand in the
bottom of them towards their open space requirement calculation. So, that's what this
condition said was exclusive of all wet ponds provide, you know, your open space. I do
not believe -- there is like 8.5 percent open space. Five percent is required by
ordinance for a subdivision. If you exclude those drainage areas, if, in fact, they do
place sand in the bottom of those and they are not green anymore and we don't
calculate those, I think they will still be above the five percent minimum that's required.
So, I would ask that if that's the case, if they want to have those -- you know, sand in the
bottom, that's fine, if they need them for drainage, but they exclude those from their
cales and give the city what is really the usable open space, then. So -- and I think they
will be fine, but it will change that 8.5 percent open space to a lesser percentage and I
just don't know what that would be.
Zaremba: Again, may I interrupt. This is a long one, so maybe we should ask our
questions when they come up. It is permissible to do sand at the base of a drainage. I
see a lot of them that have some decorative rocks added to that. Is that something we
are allowed to ask the applicant to do as well?
Hood: You can and, actually, we have -- I don't remember the exact language we were
kind of getting away from this code, and one of the last subdivisions I'll review with this
code, but there are stream bed type looks that we can use and they can still count that
towards that calculation. It's a little -- this is a Conditional Use Permit, so, really, in fact,
any conditions that you needed to put on this applicant towards the CUP you could
condition them that way and say you want to see a stream bed type look through those
sand infiltrations or whatever if you think that's more attractive. That is certainly your
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 27 of 85
discretion. I was getting to the point that we sometimes along those streets we do allow
those and we still count that towards the open space in commercial projects, so that's
the difference.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hood: I'm going to jump over 1.2.5. The applicant did bold that one, but that applies to
the northern portion and both the Settler's Canal and the White Drain are both on the
south subdivisions. So, that comment is not in the right place. 1.1.2. B -- now we are
getting to the Volterra South Subdivision conditions. This is the one that I referred to
earlier with the roadside swales. We would just ask that that stay the same. And
fencing along the Settler's in 1.1.8.8 -- 1.1.8.B, this is along the same lines as fencing --
I'm sorry I didn't touch on it earlier, but it's the same premise that the other code -- and,
in fact, it would be open space. The applicant is requesting to put up a six-foot high
fence along both sides of the White Drain. That, in effect, makes this a tunnel that really
no one can see down or through and so for the same reason staff would recommend
that either it be a six foot clear vision along this entire length or a four foot solid along
that entire way. If you put up a six foot with one inch in between, you just can't see back
there and that becomes very problematic, especially with a live ditch there. Along the
backside of the Settler's Canal -- we are okay with that. The same premise as
Commissioner Zaremba brought up before. You can see the backside of that from the
street. So, these homes should be allowed to have a six-foot tall fence on the backside,
as long as they don't fence off both sides with a solid, which that's not what they are
proposing to do. And we are okay with the six-foot solid on the south side of the
common lot or north side of the build-able lots, whichever you prefer. Same property
line. 1.2.2.B is the same comment as the other one previous, with the sand in the
bottom of the drainage lots. I may stop here for a moment, just so we will go in order
and you all can follow along and jump to Public Works. There were some bold in the
Public Works section. I am going to -- wait. Maybe before I do, I'm going to just make
one comment on another agency's comments and that has to do with the parks
department's standard comment that the multi-use pathway needs to be constructed
according to their Comprehensive Plan. That cross-section is -- it's crazy. It's -- they
want a bunch of sub base and three-quarter crush and it, you know, could hold a couple
fire trucks that -- it's not necessary. So, we would agree with the applicant on condition
5.1, that that language just be changed, it says that the multi-use pathway be
constructed in coordination with the parks department, because Doug Strong and his
staff recognize that, in effect, too, and just work with the applicant on that. And with that
I think I'll let --
Zaremba: Okay. I think the statement has been made that their current requirement
would be sufficient to land airplanes on.
Hood: Yeah.
Zaremba: Is there a move either to have them changed or defend that requirement?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 28 of 85
Hood: I think what -- I'll make a note here, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I
think what I'll do is I'll make a note to get with Doug and we will change our standard
comments -- we will change the language in there, so it says something more to the fact
of what the applicant's proposing for language, rather than having to go through this
every time. So, sorry that has fallen through the cracks, but we will try to get that
cleaned up here in the near future.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Cole.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm just going to hit on the bold
comments that the applicant had issues with. The first one is the first comment Public
Works made. Most of this site is master planned to drain to the future North Black Cat
lift station, which is under design now and has a scheduled finishing of roughly early '08.
So, a majority of this site -- more than a majority -- most of this site is not sewer-able at
this time. The applicant has asked that she be allowed to sewer a portion of it that she
could gravity back to the Ten Mile trunk in Ten Mile Road. Public Works would support
them gravitying that portion of the project which actually lies in the Ten Mile trunk shed
that is master planned to go that way and that any additional that they could reach with
gravity. They would have to fund a study to determine the flows to make sure that trunk
could handle the capacity to be run by the Public Works Department. And they could --
if the capacity existed in that trunk main in Ten Mile, they could at that time gravity it, as
long as they used no substandard slopes or artificial fill that would bring the grade up
sufficient to sewer more than the natural topography would allow. I have talked that
over with the applicant. She was in agreement with it, I believe. The second comment
that she had issue with was 2.9. The comment reads that any sewer or water main not
placed in the public right of way be centered in 20 foot wide easements. Her comment
back was that services and hydrants would be in the public utility irrigation and drainage
easement that is dedicated next to the right of way on the plat. However, the comment
reads: Any of those mains not in the public right of way and if they are not in the right of
way, the prescribed easement isn't there to cover the hydrants and the water meters. I
discussed this with her earlier. She -- I believe she's in agreement to comply completely
with that comment.
Zaremba: So, most of them are within a right of way and this only applies to --
Cole: Correct.
Zaremba: -- a few feet here and there that are not?
Cole: Most commercial developments have public roads -- or private roads or
easements that function as roads and they are not actually ACHD right of way, so there
is no utility easements for them. All ACHD right of way has a blanket easement for our
facilities and are thus covered. The entire residential sub would be covered by that
easement, unless they route it through a common lot through a micro-path, which is
commonly done. That would have to be covered by an additional easement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 29 of 85
Zaremba: Good.
Cole: The next one is the roadside swale that Craig talked about earlier. Along right of
ways, as I just was mentioning, they -- the plats dedicate ten feet of easement on the
outside of the right of way for public utilities. These are phone, power, gas,
communications, cable TV -- I believe I have hit all of them. There is facilities of that
nature. They are not owned by Public Works, we don't operate them, maintain them,
but it's a standard practice to put that easement dedicated on the plat for these utilities.
The comment was to add extra easement because of the road -- the roadside swale
design or the eight-foot mow strip. The sidewalk is actually outside of the easement --
or outside of the right of way, would encroach into that ten-foot easement, so those
utilities would not have a ten-foot free and clear easement. The applicant has indicated
to me that she wants to place trees -- the landscaping in that easement on those
corridors coming in. She would have to get the approval of those entities that run in the
common trench. Public Works would feel uncomfortable allowing something of that
nature in somebody else's easement. We don't allow it in ours. And I believe with that
she has agreed to all of our conditions outside of that. So, I would stand for any
questions you may have of me.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Seems pretty clear. Mr. Hood.
Hood: Almost done here. Just a couple more things I wanted to point out. There was a
traffic impact study that was submitted with this, took up a couple of pages in the staff
report. Just probably the biggest highlight, I guess, is that this development is
anticipated to generate 9,711 vehicle trips per day. So, I just wanted to throw that out
there at you, just -- that's at full build out and that does include the commercial aspect
and everything. Staff is recommending that the applicant owner enter into a
development agreement with the city primarily to insure that this project is developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and that it doesn't
negatively affect other property owners. We are in that DA requesting language that
requires each and every building within the office and commercial area to come back in
for a Conditional Use Permit, so it will be subject to staff review and the Commission
review with the new ordinance, as well as notification to property owners in the vicinity
and posting the site and things of that nature. So, with that staff is recommending
approval of this application with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will stand
for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 30 of 85
Moe: Yeah. Craig, a couple things I did read I just wanted to verify. As far as the park
properties and whatnot in there, those are private, so they will manage those parks,
maintenance and whatnot the city will not have that to deal with?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that is my understanding. Becky may clarify. I
did talk with her on the phone as well, because Doug Strong also had those very same
concerns, if they -- if they want this to be a city park, they need to construct it to our
standards now or else we are not going to take it over for them. So, that is the intent, I
believe, that this is a private park and they understand that if they want to turn it over in
the future, it needs to be constructed to meet the parks department standards, so --
Moe: Okay. Then, the other thing I was kind of curious, if you can just touch on a little
bit and I noted that the applicant is requesting as far as phasing for this project, to do
commercial to start with and, then, go beyond at that point. I mean -- I guess the
applicant could probably answer this as well. I just kind of want to get an idea of what
kind of percentages of the residential, along with commercial, we are going to be doing
at any given time. I'm concerned about having all the commercial built out first in a
residential area and, then, we go beyond that. So, I just kind of want to get a feel for
that.
Hood: You're right, Commissioner Moe, I think that is a better question, probably, for
the applicant. I can let you know the phasing lines and that was something that was
brought up in the staff report as well. They did have their phases being in this general
location, then, phasing back and eventually over to Black Cat. But, at the same time,
they did ask for leniency in phasing, so if the market says, you know, commercial is
really slow and housing is booming, then, they are going to do the residential portion
first, is my understanding, but -- but you may want to ask the applicant that question, so
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? We are ready for the applicant, please.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
representing Primeland Development on this particular application. As Craig indicated,
this is a continuation of the Bridgetower project. The Bridgetower project is located in
this area here, everything east of Ten Mile. This is McMillan. And it goes clear down to
Ustick and over to Linder. So, it runs a mile in both directions. The Bridgetower project
also included Verona, which is this 80 acre parcel right here. So, we had -- I don't
know, there was probably around a thousand lots in there, residential lots. We are
currently finishing up our last phase of -- as far as design is concerned, which is phase
14. So, we have been out here for five years now working on this project. My clients,
when they purchased this portion, also purchased the James farm west of Ten Mile that
went out to Black Cat, up to the half mile, down to McMillan, and, then, this 80 acres
that you see south of McMillan and west of Ten Mile. So, we master planned this area
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 31 of 85
here. We tried some different things in there. We had patio home components, single-
family dwellings. We had lots that range from 7,500 square feet all the way up to like
15,20 thousand square feet. We had a mixture of office along the arterials and, then, a
commercial core right here at the Ten Mile and McMillan intersection. We incorporated
an elementary site, which is the Hunter Elementary, which came on line this fall. We
had a seven-acre open space private park down here next to Ustick and, then, we had
some office down here. So, we have learned a lot as we went through the Bridgetower
project on what worked and what didn't and where we went wrong and when we came
to the time where we needed to start master planning this, because we anticipate being
built out in there probably in the next year and a half to two years, we needed to,
obviously, to get this area master planned and approved. So, what's before you this
evening is the Volterra Subdivision, Volterra here and Volterra South, but will be
marketed as Bridgetower West. We continued the same theme, the commercial corner
here. We have got what we call commercial collectors that come around. They do line
up right here and wrap down and, then, wrap back down into Ten Mile Road and these
are -- exceed the 440 foot offset, so they are full approach. We also continued our --
the continuous collector concept. Right here the half-mile, so we matched up with what
we did here. This is the Lochsa Community Park and here is the four acres that we
donated to the city to bring that Lochsa Park closer to 30 acres in size. So, we matched
up with that approach. We bring a continuous collector, drop it all the way down to
McMillan and, then, match up with a non-continuous collector drop in here into the south
portion. We come off here with another continuous collector and that goes all the way
out to Black Cat. That system has worked well. We have got a lot of accolades from
the residents that live there that they like these little pods, they call them, that it creates
a nice little neighborhood within an overall community. So, it's been quite successful.
Our core here is around ten, eleven acres and that is a private park, called James Park.
It is the intent of the developers to keep that private, because they will have a
clubhouse, pool, and waterfall area, tot lot, and they believe that it will function just as
the seven-acre private park we have down in Bridgetower. The pictures you see here
are what's out at Bridgetower right now. This is the pool. This is the clubhouse right
here. We have got a lot of these -- these little sitting areas with pots and we have got a
large waterfall and a large pond with a fountain and we have tried to kind of have a
more Italian -- northern Italian type theme. So, they want to continue that. We have
also, I'd like to note, have donated all right of way to Ada County Highway District. And
this is the only project of any significant size that I'm aware of that the developers have
done that, made sure that ACHD got their right of way to build these arterials out to their
five lane build out and that was all donated. This particular 80 acres here, we have got
a little park right in here with a little plaza and tot lot area. That will be the focal point as
you drive into this area. These lots in here, they are around 7,000 square feet. We
have got some patio homes -- attached patio homes right here that kind of ring this
collector and would kind of buffer the detached single family from the commercial area
here. The White Drain runs through Bridgetower here, comes across and diagonals
across this 80 acres at this point and, then, dumps into the Settler's Canal. Settler's
Irrigation District board made the determination that they wanted to leave that open, so
we will have to relocate that and leave that facility open and bring it here and, then,
discharge it into the Settler's main canal. The Settler's Canal is a large facility. it's a 72
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 32 of 85
inch pipe, so the cost is astronomical to put that in pipe and it exceeds, obviously, the
48 inch that the city requires that we pipe. We have the Beach Lateral, the Scrivner
Lateral that runs through this and, then, a ditch coming down from the north. I will be
working with the Black Cat Estates residents to make sure that the facilities that are
piped that accommodate any of their surface drainage will continue to do so and there
are a couple of parcels that are serviced by a ditch that traverses through this portion of
the property, so I will work with them to either provide them an alternative source, such
as pressure irrigation or change a point of delivery or we will continue to pipe that
through to them at their historical location. As Craig indicated, this is a large project, it's
about 312 acres as far as combined. We have got about six percent office in there, 82
percent of it I think is residential and, then, we have got some commercial also in the
project. We have 728 single-family dwellings, 22 commercial lots, 15 office lots, and 72
common lots. Our overall open space is roughly around 12 and a half percent and that
would include all the buffers also. As far as our density, in looking at this we are about
three dwelling units per acre down here in the southern portion. Excludes commercial
and office. Up here I think we are considerably less, like about 2.5 or so. I think as
Craig indicated, it averages out to about 2.7. So, really, we are pretty low density. Our
lot sizes up in this northern area range from 7,500 all the way up to 40,000 square feet.
If you want to know like what your average lot size is up in this northern portion, it's
10,532 square feet. In the southern portion that average lot size is about 8,000 square
feet. My clients build larger homes, so we try to provide little bigger lots. We have got a
variety of sizes, 60 feet wide, down in this southern portion. Up in here they are in the
mid 70s and, then, they go all the way up to 90. We took great care to try to provide
some buffering to the Black Cat Estates people. Put this down. This is -- the Black Cat
Estates is located right in this area. So, I tried to make these lots that ring them deeper
and wider in order to give them a little bit better setback from the existing home. So, to
kind of give you an idea, you can see the Black Cat Estate five-acre lots. These down
in through here are 16 -- 15, 16,20 thousand, 40,000, 21,000 square feet. Through
here they are 15,000. So, I really -- I tried to make those considerably larger and when
we met with the residents at the neighborhood meeting they seemed to be quite
pleased with how we had tried to transition our lot sizes and keep those bigger. This
kind of gives you a little better idea -- you can see the commercial buildings here and
interconnectivity. With this type of concept we try to capture the traffic as much as
possible within the interior of the project, versus sending them out onto the arterials.
Over here I have got this long skinny parcel here that adjoins me. I tried to make these
lots bigger. These are in the 14, 15, 12, thousand, 19,000 square feet here. I provided
a stub street to this parcel, so it potentially could be redeveloped. As Craig indicated,
they have asked for an additional ped path up here. The only reason we objected to it,
because we got a copy electronically of the proposed project north of us and the micro-
path did not match up with any logical connection. But it sounds like that the use may
become a school, so, therefore, we would not object to the micro-path. I have also
stubbed a street here and when Wendell Bigham with the Meridian School District was
looking at this parcel, this is the half-mile. They talked about putting like a middle
school, elementary joint site on this parcel. So, since this is the half mile, this could
potentially be signalized and I gave them a stub here that was directly onto the collector
roadway, so they could -- and I set it back far enough that they wouldn't disrupt the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 33 of 85
intersection and they could flow a majority of their traffic out to this signal. Over here
that's the half-mile. That could potentially be signalized also. One thing I'd like to
mention that we are working with is we are working with Ada County Highway District on
the Ten Mile McMillan intersection. We are trying to convince them to allow us to build
that intersection out to its full build out with all the necessary lanes and put a signal in
and, then, in the future get some type of reimbursement. Based on our traffic study, this
project will generate almost two million dollars in ACHD impact fees, just the Volterra
project alone. So, we are working with the highway district. Their current five year plan,
the way it's written, because a lot of the arterials in north Meridian are not in that plan
and a priority, it makes it difficult for them to allow us for any reimbursement for the
improvements that we do at this intersection. However, Mr. Inselman indicates to me
that they are going to take a real hard look at that plan here shortly and they are going
to adjust their priorities, because the growth has been astronomical in this area and they
need to make some of these arterials priorities. So, he believes that we may be able to
come up with some type of a reimbursement agreement. One of the things that we are
-- we had an landscape architect work on at this intersection was to landscape and kind
of come in and create a nice plaza that would be on all for corners. It's the only
opportunity we will probably ever have to do that and have all those corners match and
there would be trellises and there would be -- we intend to have like little clay pots,
planter pots, a lot like you see, except on a larger scale, in this particular picture right up
here. Be similar to that, but on a larger scale. And have pavers, a nice little sitting area,
so that it looks -- even though it may be a large five lane -- or seven lane intersection, it
will look inviting to pedestrians and have a nice warm community type feel. We did
comment to the staff report. I do want to apologize to the Commission; we received
staff's report on Friday. I was fully aware that they were working on it. They told me
that it was going to be coming to us on Friday, which is later than they like it to be, but it
was just the size of the project, complexity of the project, and so it took us two days to
go through 64 pages of staff report and, then, a third day to have our client review our
comments and make sure he was in agreement with our responses. So, I do apologize
that you're seeing this today, but when we get them on Friday, there is no way we can
get them back by noon on Monday for your packet. I'd like to address -- okay. I'd like to
address the responses that I made. My client just wanted me to indicate the only
reason he showed the trees on the outside of the sidewalk was because of their past
experience with some of the trees dying. When we water the turf in the landscaped
areas, they tend to drown the trees, because the grass takes more water than the trees.
He did indicate that if it is the wish of the Commission that trees be within the landscape
-- standard landscape buffer area in front of the sidewalk, he is in agreement -- he just
wanted to pass on his past experience with the Bridgetower project. As far as fencing,
we -- in Bridgetower we came up with a style of fencing, a light baize vinyl. We used six
foot privacy fencing. We used a four-foot semi-private fence with a two-foot lattice on
top. They also put in their CC&Rs, after we did phase one, that all lots had to have the
same type of fencing. So, if you drive through there you will notice that all the lots are
consistent in their fencing and it gave the subdivision a lot warmer feel, because we
didn't have all kinds of different colors and materials for the individual lots. I did bring a
drawing to you to kind of look at this evening of what we have out there at Bridgetower.
This is a detail that goes on our landscape plan. As you can see, this is a six-foot semi-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 34 of 85
private fencing and so the slats are one-inch gaps between them. This is the four-foot
semi-private with a two-foot lattice. This particular one is a solid private fence with a
two-foot lattice. It was my client's wishes that we be able to continue with the same type
of fencing and I do want to note that when this project was submitted it was prior to the
adoption of the new ordinance. So, the new ordinance is not applicable to this project,
it's under the old ordinance. We would like to continue with the same type of fencing. If
the one-inch gaps aren't acceptable, then, maybe, you know, we'd like to get with the
staff and see what they'd feel more comfortable with. We have also used like some
three foot fencing that we put along the outside of the Settler's Canal to give a barrier
next to the sidewalk where the Settler's Canal is open. We kind of determined in
watching the kids out there that the big kids are going to get over any type of fencing. If
they want to get there, the big kids are going to get there. It's the little kids that we have
to be concerned with. So, when we have the Settler's Canal open here, what we
proposed to Settler's and their board and staff really liked, we have an open canal and,
then, we go with a three-foot vinyl fence and, then, we had our sidewalk on the inside
landscaping and, then, our sidewalk on the inside and, then, we had a six-foot fence
beyond that. If the Commission defers us tonight to kind of look through the responses,
because I know this is a big project and it is complex, I would like the opportunity to take
some pictures out there and bring those back to kind of give you an idea, because I
think that would kind of help you guys visualize a picture of what that fencing looks like.
As far as the ponds, we had some groundwater issues at Bridgetower. We had grass in
the bottom of the ponds, we had some spikes in our groundwater out there that were
caused due to agricultural use out there and we have seen a substantial change in the
groundwater -- this kind of gives you an idea. This is in Bridgetower 13 and 14. This
was the '04 season and as you can see it spiked, definite spike. Then, the one that
appears to be pretty constant, that's the '05 season when we had no agricultural
activities within our project. So, you see that there is a big difference. But we do want
the option of being able to put some sand in there. We have tried the cobblestones, we
have tried that, we ended up tearing those out. They get black with the street silt
sediment, we have to go in, pressure wash them, and, then, that silt gets down there
and, then, it would start sealing up underneath the rock and we ended up removing
them. So, we have tried different things when we have seen a spike in groundwater.
Right now we are utilizing the swales, the eight-foot grassy swales. Instead of
concentrating our drainage in specific areas, we are trying to distribute the drainage in
small amounts throughout the project. Our phase ten through 14 in Bridgetower, we are
trying that method and we are going to see how successful that is, how easy it is to
maintain, how the homeowners like it. We would like to continue that in Volterra if it is --
if it works out well.
Moe: Becky, I do have a question on that. Basically, staff said that if you'd just
recalculate your open space, deleting those ponds, you would have -- probably still be
within the requirement. So, is that something that you can do and, then, we don't worry
so much about the sand in the ponds?
McKay: Yes, sir, we could do that. And I think they had me do that when we went to
some sand bottoms in the original Bridgetower, how did that impact our open space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 35 of 85
Moe: And one of -- Mr. Chairman, we had a bell. I would assume because of the size
of this project we are not going to worry about that as of yet?
Zaremba: She appears to near conclusion anyhow. We can continue.
Moe: Yes.
McKay: I think we have already addressed the sewer issue. We are in agreement.
The Council approved Bainbridge just north of us that Brighton came in with. The sewer
will be coming down Black Cat and, then, my understanding on the map it appears that
the sewer goes through us and up to Bainbridge. So, we are just getting the project
approved. Obviously, cognizant of the fact that we have to wait for that sewer trunk to
get to us.
Zaremba: Would your phasing --
McKay: Phasing.
Zaremba: That may be two years from now before the sewer is actually available to
hook up to.
McKay: Correct.
Zaremba: Does that work with your phasing?
McKay: Yes, sir, it does. And to answer the phasing question, I think one of the
Commissioners was concerned about the commercial coming online in advance of the
residential. What we have seen is we have seen a little bit of office use. We have got
an assisted living care facility out here. We have got an office building here. A dental
clinic here. I think there is doctor's office or -- there is some type of medical office --
Newton-Huckabay: An orthodontist.
McKay: Orthodontist. Yep. And we have not seen any major commercial users. Fred
Meyer has looked out here at this site for a potential large store, but at this time just not
enough roof tops. It takes a lot of roof-tops to get the big guys out there. So, you know,
I think we are going to have to -- you know, our phasing, we want flexibility. We have
got about 14 phases. We are going to have to put substantially more roof-tops out there
to get the commercial to develop. And, like I said, we have seen that with Bridgetower,
that that's the last thing that appears to be developing is the bigger box commercial.
Along the collector the staff brought up the issue of the easement. I just want to make
sure that we have the ability to put landscaping. We cluster trees and shrubs and so
forth along our collectors, I don't want to have the trees on the far outside of that 20-foot
landscaped area. The ten-foot easement common trench is on the local streets. I know
that that doesn't preclude the homeowners from going in and planting trees and putting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 36 of 85
rocks and shrubs, so I just want to make sure that on the collectors we are not getting a
requirement from your staff that's not necessary. We want to make sure these
collectors look good. Other than that, I think the staff and ourselves are in agreement. I
did disagree with the fire department wanting us to paint red curbs in our residential
areas. I know that's appropriate in the commercial as far as the fire lanes, but we do not
want that in our residential subdivision. And I think that was one of the comments from
the fire department. Other than that I think --
Zaremba: Would a no parking this side of the street sign be acceptable?
McKay: Yes. We do that all along the collector. ACHD requires all the collectors have
no parking signs on both sides. So, that keeps people from parking. All of our streets
are public, full street sections, so we don't have any reduced roadways or anything. I
just don't want to put any red -- oh, that would be terrible -- on the curbing. Other than
that, I think I have probably covered most everything. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
McKay: And I did bring some pictures. The staff did ask me to bring pictures to the
Commission of some of the structures that we are building in the subdivision at
Bridgetower. These did come out of Bridgetower. And I think the staff's got them up
there, too. Most of the homes are pretty large. Prices out there are high 200s, going all
the way up to 500,000. Square footages, I think they are 20 some hundred square feet
and the largest house I know of that's in there is about 6,000 square feet. So, we have
got a good variety. We do have our patio homes up here in Verona. Those are
210,000 dollars for the patio homes. So, with the escalating price of lots and materials,
even when we try to do affordable housing, we are having problems.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions at the moment?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: One on your landscaping and the concern about the trees and the water. Do
you know whether they have looked into any water tolerable trees? Have they checked
with the -- have they checked with the landscape architect or a landscape person on
that? I don't know if there is that many available, but --
McKay: Commissioner Borup, to answer your question, they did have some soils
experts come out and look at the soil. They had their landscape architect come out and
I think when they -- when they had the problems, they swapped out some different
varieties to see if that would help. But they did have to replace quite a few trees.
Getting the turf established I think is what really causes the problem, because they just
water the turf excessively to make sure it's nice and green and gets established and the
trees suffer. So, it is a landscape architect problem and they do have somebody
working on it, yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 37 of 85
Borup: They probably just need to cut the watering down once it's established and
that's the problem.
McKay: I recommended that multiple times, that I thought they were watering too much.
Moe: Just one other question in regard to the fencing at the Settler's Canal. You said
you were going to put a three foot at the canal and, then, you would have your six foot
beyond that to the south; is that correct?
McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Consistent with what's out there right now. It looks a lot
better than what the Meridian School District put next to the canal with the chain link
with the slats. That just looks too industrial.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: We do have a few people signed up to add testimony and this will be the
opportunity. Let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman and will be
speaking for other people who will not speak? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Let's begin
with Paul Poorman.
Poorman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Paul Poorman and
I have live at 6230 North Black Cat Road. That's south of the proposed subdivision. I'm
in the skinny little lot out there on Black Cat that was referenced. If you haven't realized
it, western Ada County has a lot of problems. Traffic congestion leads to long
commutes, time wasted sitting in lines at intersections, air pollution from automobiles,
wood stoves, and the Amalgamated Sugar clouds the air in the winter. Car collisions kill
and maim innocent drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Drunk drivers, aggressive drivers,
and impatient drivers, and stop light runners are creating chaos on the highways. Our
schools are overcrowded and the Meridian School District can't build the schools fast
enough to keep up with the influx of the new students. Our utility companies can't build
the power plants, the gas lines, the sewer connections and the water wells fast enough
to keep up with the new families moving in. ACHD can't build the roads fast enough to
alleviate the congestion. Our residential areas are so spread out that stacking a public
transit system on top of the existing patchwork of homes is virtually impossible. Our
property taxes are rising an overage of ten percent a year. And, lastly, we face an
obesity epidemic that threatens to overwhelm our hospitals and doctors with heart
disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, and arthritis. And this subdivision is going to
exacerbate all of these problems and I feel that it should be denied for the following
reasons: It adds to the overcrowded schools in the area and would require Meridian
School District to build more schools to accommodate the new students, while schools
in Boise are losing students. It will add to traffic and urban sprawl, forcing the ACHD
and ITD, the transportation department, to build more roads. It's diametrically opposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 38 of 85
to the Compass community choice alternative that encourages public transportation, car
pools, walking, and cycling as alternatives to single occupant vehicles as a primary
means of transport. It will further tax city services, such as police, fire, building
department, sewer and animal control. It will force people to drive elsewhere for
everything, as there are no grocery stores, restaurants, employers or services nearby.
It will increase air pollution. It will drain the groundwater aquifers and the lot sizes are
incompatible with the existing lot sizes. Putting a 10 to 15 thousand square foot lot
next to a 200 to 350 thousand square foot lot is not equivalent. It will force the traffic out
onto the connector road and prevent traffic from flowing through it. And the proposed
streets do not line up with the existing streets. It's less desirable for cycling and running
and walking, the very activities to counter obesity and help people control their weight.
And so I don't have a whole lot of hope that our voice is going to be heard, so if the
subdivision is approved, I'd like the following comments entered into the public record.
The first is that the drain ditch which flows to the -- along the southern border of the
proposed subdivision --
Zaremba: Sir, you need to pick up the other microphone.
Poorman: Sorry.
Zaremba: And it's time for you to conclude as well.
Poorman: Okay. So, it's right here. That's their responsibility, it's their property, and
they need to dredge it out every spring as it silts in and floods the property to the south.
And the fences need to be placed several feel back to the ditch to allow access for the
equipment needed to clean the ditch. This ditch needs to stay open, because it collects
our runoff, and the wells' needs are going to be subservient to existing water rights. No
more street lights than necessary should be installed and they should not be pointed at
the sky. And I feel that the developer should be required to pay the city and county
governments for additional cost of services this incurs. They should be placed on the
back of property owners. And so lId like to close with a quote, the source I'm not sure
of, but which is particularly applicable here. If you find yourself in a hole, the first you
should stop do -- you should do is to stop digging and this subdivision is just going to
sink us deeper into that hole of urban sprawl and it needs to be turned down. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you.
Gale Poorman.
G.Poorman: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is
Gale Poorman and I have lived at 5230 North Black Cat Road, south and bordering the
proposed Volterra Subdivision for 21 years. I find it ironic that I have been given just
three minutes to talk about the last 20 some years of my life and why the rampant,
uncontrolled growth we are experiencing in our area will ultimately drive my family and
my neighbors away from our rural way of life. I find it ironic that Meridianls Mayor
Tammy de Weerd recently spoke of the assets of our community, the Boise River and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 39 of 85
open spaces. Yet she failed to recognize how cookie cutter subdivisions like this
proposed Volterra subdivision are eating away at those very assets. But, alas, I cannot
stop the onslaught of humanity. What I do know is that we should embrace some smart
growth ideas, like those proposed by Compass, Communities in Motion, an organization
I have been working with. First of all, sirs and madam, the infrastructure to support the
subdivision growth in our area just isn't there. This past year there have been five
fatalities at the intersection west of us, McMillan and McDermott Road. Also this past
year there have been enough accidents at the crossroads nearest to us, Black Cat and
McMillan, to warrant a long needed four-way stop. My neighbors will attest that drivers
use Black Cat Road as a speedway and often accelerating to 80 miles per hour plus
passed our house, yet I have yet to see one arrest for speeding in all the years we have
lived on Black Cat. And here is something to give you an idea of the traffic congestion
in our area today. I have a commute of roughly 16 miles to my job in Boise. If I leave
my house between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a,m. driving my car, it takes me
about an hour to reach my destination, because of the backed up traffic on Chinden
Boulevard. Alternatively, if I ride my bicycle, as I often do, it takes me an hour and 15
minutes. And this is provided I'm not run off the shoulderless McMillan Road by angry
drivers. What are your plans to alleviate this traffic nightmare? Will you embrace the
ideas of a bus service or of a light rail system for commuters? How about bicycle
lanes? I know that the Ada County Highway District has plans to widen our roads,
including a plan to widen Black Cat Road that will ultimately run through my front porch.
But this is not smart growth. With increasing gas prices and oil shortages, we need to
have a vision that embraces alternative transportation, New subject. Water. I hope I
have enough time. Not the infinite resource we think it is. I have a hydrologist friend
who plans water systems for subdivisions. I told him our well is about 180 feet deep
and asked him how long it will be -- it will last given all the growth in the Treasure
Valley. His prediction -- he had none. It's okay for the time being he said. The time
being. For now. Until we have wall-to-wall houses watering lawns with water features
from Boise to Caldwell. Need I remind you we live in a desert. How long before we
become like those communities in Arizona with water wars and rationing? Again, a
smart growth plan would include terra scaping which incorporates plants and landscape
features suitable to our environment. The plans in Volterra include waterfalls, fountains,
and swimming pools. Highly evaporative features that waste precious water. Schools
and services. An afterthought to this Volterra Subdivision construction, but they will
come and they will increase traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and light up
our night sky so that we, like so many other big city inhabitants across the country, will
not be able to see the stars of our night sky. Our rural way of life and open spaces will
be gone, but we will have more money in our tax collector coffers. A sad future, but not
one we have to have, Not if we plan now for transportation systems, water conservation
landscapes, and provision for alternative to driving single occupant automobiles that
would make our community unique and thoughtfully planned. So, I ask you to consider
my comments as you approve these new subdivisions. Scrutinize the developers and
the timeline needed for improvements to accommodate Meridian's incredulous growth.
Compare Meridian with her sister communities like Eagle where larger lots enable
people to preserve a semblance of country life and do this not for me, I whine too much,
but for our children and for our grandchildren. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 40 of 85
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Ken Arendse. From the audience
he says he's been spoken for and his questions have been addressed. Those are the
only people who have signed up, although there is an opportunity, if anybody else would
care to add something that has not been said. Sir, come forward and start with your
name and address, please.
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road. I just want to stress the north
-- just south of Chinden and just the amount of traffic, I hope that everybody does take
into consideration the amount of traffic that goes on the main arteries and Chinden is
only a two lane road and I have not been able to get any confirmation from anybody
from the transportation department on any plans upcoming to widen that road. So, I
think that does created some -- you know, me, myself, I can look out my window and
see the traffic backed all the way up to Linder at the light and everything, so that's my
biggest concern that I personally have. I'm not a neighboring person of this subdivision,
but that is something I hope that you take in consideration with all future developments
that you're doing, the whole infrastructure, whether the transportation department is
incompetent to really adjust their plans to accommodate all the outlying growth that's
going on, I think we need to take a look at the railroads, the interstate, building up the
residential areas higher in those areas before we start moving out, you know, much at
the speed that we are doing right now. So, those are the only considerations I hope that
everybody takes in plan. And if you have any comments on the -- any growth, the traffic
plans of Chinden, of them building that out, and, then, also what the time period is -- I
keep hearing a five lane -- five lane road on Ten Mile, what kind of time period we are
looking at before any of that happens, I'd appreciate that, too.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Anybody else care to add any?
Okay. We will try and answer some of the questions that have been raised and we will
begin with the applicant again.
McKay: I'll try to address the questions as quick as possible. As far as the traffic is
concerned, we did do -- we had a study done by Washington Group, who was also the
same entity that ACHD retained for the north Meridian traffic planning study and the City
of Meridian, I guess, asked them to update their north Meridian study. We use that
same entity. They determined that at Black Cat and McMillan the level of service, even
at our build out, is still going to be level of service B. At Ten Mile and McMillan it will be
level of service C. With the additional lanes that we are providing with the half mile mid
section collectors, we are going above and beyond what normal projects do. Not very
many projects do these continuous collectors and they really do work to capture the
traffic within the interior to try to also allow options for people versus going down
through the intersection here, they can come through and maybe go out this direction or
come out and make a free right in that direction. So, it provides the drivers more
options, not just within the subdivision, but also in that general vicinity. As far as the
schools are concerned, we worked with the school district on that Hunter Elementary for
the Bridgetower project. That particular site we put in a drop-off lane within the
Bridgetower project for the parents to drop kids off and to park and wait for them. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 41 of 85
also made sure that we sold that to the school district at cost, at the cost that they got
the property. This is a -- I know for the fact the cheapest elementary site Meridian
School District bought in north Meridian, because they told me. And that's why Hunter
Elementary was the first school built in north Meridian, because our site was the most
affordable. And we wanted to make sure that we got an elementary out here to serve
these kids. So, it's not like we are just ignoring the situation with the school district, we
worked closely with Wendell, we even added a collector road to accommodate them
when they were denied direct lot access to McMillan Road. As far as compatibility, we
always struggle when we have five-acre lots that adjoin us. How do we bridge that
compatibility? Like I said many times before, residential is compatible with residential
and we do our best from a planning perspective to try to do a transition of lot sizes next
to the larger lots, provide stub streets, so that they at some time could redevelop, but
you can't match five acre to five acre or acre to acre, I'm just not -- it just doesn't work. I
have tried it before and it's just -- it's just not what I call good planning. As far as like
they brought up Smart Growth. Smart Growth would have me putting eight dwelling
units per acre up against five acre lots, because they don't care about compatibility
issues, they are trying to get as dense as possible, which they believe will promote
mass transit in the future. Now, there is different arguments about that, whether that's
appropriate or not. The way we have designed, if mass transit -- van pooling, we have
parking lots at the clubhouses, we have these collector roadways where bus service, if it
were ever to become available out in this area, could come off the arterials, come into
like a central location here at the clubhouse, pick up people, take them to work. So, we
do look at those issues. As far as walking, we have provided a ten-foot multi-use
pathway that starts here at Ten Mile, right across from the Meridian community park. It
will run all the way to Black Cat. We have interconnections of micro-paths here, here,
through here, everywhere outside of these pods to make interconnectivity and promote
walking within the section, so people are not getting in their cars. Urban sprawl, the
most -- the classic example of urban sprawl in this valley right now is Eagle, where you
have central sewer, central water, state highways, they are in the city limits, and they
are coming in with one unit per acre. That is classic urban sprawl. In some places out
there they are even making them go two acre lots. From a planning perspective, land is
a finite recourse and we need to utilize it and manage it well. There are places where
high density is appropriate, there are places where medium density and low density is
appropriate. When central services are available I don't think acre and two acre lots are
appropriate. This is not a cookie cutter subdivision. A cookie cutter subdivision is when
we come in and we chop these things up into 40 acre lots. My clients bought this -- I
think there was 800 acres total to make sure that they could do a large planned
development that could be a community standing on its own, provide necessary
neighborhood services, such as office, commercial, schools, pathways, parks. When
we come in with a large project, that's the only way we can provide all those amenities
is by having a project that obviously can pay for those amenities, those little 40 acre
subdivisions, that's what -- the ones that have problems. Or smaller than that. As far as
water, we will be hooking to Meridian municipal water system. There are two large
irrigation wells on this property, one on the north and one on the east. They are IDWR
approved irrigation wells that have supplemented the irrigation on this property. They
are great big and deep for years. We are going to be using the gravity surface
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 42 of 85
irrigation. Pressurized irrigation. We are not going to be putting down any new wells.
Those would be only a secondary source, only utilized in the event that we had no
option or a severe drought season. The water features, we build those, we work with
the people to make sure that we minimize the amount of evaporation -- in fact, we
worked on our system out there, we have a large irrigation pond at Bridgetower, it had
like a thing that shot straight up in the air, a water feature, we found that the evaporation
for that was considerable, so we went to just the small kind of a little cone type, like a
fireworks, system out there. This is an excellent project and I cherish the times that I
have the opportunity to plan a project of this size and put the amenities and the diversity
of the homes and the lots like we have done here and add commercial and office and so
forth.
We don't get that opportunity very often in our planning world and these parcels are
going so quickly and people are buying so fast that I don't know how many more of
these we will see. So, I think we -- we have worked on this for two years. It's not
something we put together in two months and drop into the city. It takes a long time.
Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Hood.
Hood: If I may, while Becky is up there, there was one issue that was brought up by
Poormans that I'd like to see what Becky knows about the ditch that traverses the
southwest quarter of the northwest portion of the site there that kind of -- I was not
aware, I guess, of that -- yeah. The ditch there and what -- is it on your property, in fact,
and --
McKay: Yes. It's delineated as the Scrivner. It's coming across -- I think it comes -- it
comes through here, cuts like this, and, then, comes up.
Hood: So, is that going to be tiled? Is that your intent?
McKay: It is our intent to pipe the Scrivner, but I told the people at the neighborhood
meeting I would be working with them to, obviously, coordinate the piping of that,
because I do know that there is drainage water that goes into that. And so I got some
phone numbers and names and I told them we would walk it and get Mr. James out
there, who has farmed this forever, and make sure that we have accommodated
everyone.
Hood: Does Settler's have any comment on that? Because I know that was one of the
reasons that they wanted the White Drain to remain open is because that is, in fact, a
drain and it will help the groundwater in there.
McKay: The Beach Lateral, the Scrivner Lateral, are both user laterals.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 43 of 85
Hood: Okay.
McKay: The only facilities under Settler's is the Settler's Canal, the White Drain, and
the Coleman Lateral.
Hood: So, just for the Commission and the applicant --
McKay: And McMullen. Sorry.
Hood: If, in fact, that determined what -- all parties would prefer be left open, then, you
would need to come in and get that condition changed, because as worded it does need
to be covered, just so everyone knows that is a condition right now.
McKay: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, just -- would you like just a quick update on what we know
on the transportation corridors or -- I think there was a comment about the state
highway --
Zaremba: There was a question about state highways.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. We don't know a lot. It would be good to have ITD or somebody
here, but what I do know is that the Idaho Transportation Department has hired
Parametrics Engineering -- transportation engineering firm to conduct a right of way
preservation corridor study from Eagle Road clear to 1-84 in Caldwell. I believe they are
four or five months into that corridor study. The goal of that study is to identify the
ultimate right of way, the type of roadway, split median, the number of lanes, key access
points. It's not a construction project, it is a right of way and design concept study. But,
anyway, I think that that's about an 18 month contract. And, like I say, I think they are
like four or five months into it. So, as far as 20-26, that -- the ACHD does have in their
five-year work program a widening of Ten Mile Road from Franklin to Ustick I believe in
'07. So, it would not extend into this area. I think as Becky may have noted earlier,
ACHD has no north Meridian projects in their five year work program right now and
that's being looked at very carefully over the next few months. And there is a -- there is
a very detailed traffic study that was done just last year as the Commission -- or just two
months ago, as the Commission knows, as part of the north Meridian Comp Plan
amendment and that's a study that's available and the public is welcome to come to our
office and look at that.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, discussion?
Borup: I have got one question for staff, Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 44 of 85
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Any comment on the -- I'm talking about fences on the semi-private -- so-called
semi-private fences, any comments on that? Does that allow the visibility that's -- that
the police department is comfortable with?
Hood: It does not. And, in fact, there is a comment made by the police department in
the staff report in section four or five, I can1t remember what their comments are, that
actually want a four foot solid adjacent to all common areas as well, because they have
learned those -- the semi-private fences, it does not offer the visibility that they would
like to have and that's why we did adopt the new ordinance, understanding that this is
grandfathered, if you will, with the old ordinance. But for safety purposes we would like
this Commission to go with that requirement, that all open spaces and micro-paths
comply with the four-foot solid or the six foot open vision, and not allow that lattice and
not allow a solid fence. I mean that's the way they still look at it. Three-quarter of an
inch, an inch, inch and a half, they still don't believe that that is an open vision fence and
gives them that visibility that they need to patrol those areas. So, I know Bridgetower
has been one of the ones that was used as -- they had some semi-private fencing there
and that just has not worked out well for them.
Borup: It hasn't?
Hood: No.
Borup: My experience driving by there is just the opposite. When you're driving by in a
car you can see everything in there.
Hood: That's what the police department -- Bob Stowe attends our meetings when we
have our agency meetings and they are pretty adamant about the fencing and were
instrumental in getting that approved in the new UDC, so --
Borup: But the semi-private is not even mentioned in that, is it?
Hood: Well, we had a problem with defining semi-private. I mean that was the problem
is it is half an inch --
Borup: That was why I brought it up.
Hood: -- three-quarters, an inch, what -- you know, what is semi-private fencing.
Zaremba: Let me, if I can, clarify the scope of any disagreement that we may be trying
to resolve. We are really only discussing what fence would go around the two private
parks and along the canal that they are going to leave open. Everything else can be six
feet private -- or six feet; am I correct?
Hood: Yeah. The micro-paths would also be restricted to four foot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 45 of 85
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. And the micro-paths.
Hood: Yeah. But, yes, that's, essentially, the only areas are the park areas and the
micro-paths. There aren't any, really, other open space areas that this fencing
requirement would apply to, other than if they were to put up fences on either side of the
Settler's Canal that -- the three foot that they are proposing, if that would go to a six foot,
that would not be supportive of that, necessarily. But they are proposing a lower fence
and, then, a higher one on the backside of that or adjacent to the build-able lots, so --
yeah.
Moe: You're saying the higher one would have to be the open type fencing?
Hood: No. That one along -- along McMillan, because it's adjacent to the roadway,
you can still see in there.
Moe: I got you.
Borup: So, what's the definition of an open vinyl fence?
Hood: There is no definition of an open vinyl fence.
Zaremba: Probably have to be all latticework or something like that.
Hood: Wrought iron I think is called out. Chain link. Which wrought iron is what we are
looking for, but that would be another --
Borup: Around the park.
Hood: But chain link with slats is not acceptable.
Borup: We are mainly talking around the park.
Hood: Correct. The two park areas.
Zaremba: My instinct would be to stick with the four feet in those selected areas and
allow the developer to -- I mean they would still be of matching color and materials and
allow the six feet all the other places. Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be mulling
that over or --
Rohm: I just think that there was a lot of work put into the writing of the new code and
that's one of the areas that was specifically addressed and any new developments,
whether applied for prior to the acceptance of that, we should do everything we can to
follow the discussion of the people that helped write it, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 46 of 85
Zaremba: Well -- and even the projects that came before us recently before the new
ordinance was adopted, we put that requirement in by a development agreement
attached to the annexation. I mean it isn't -- it isn't that we haven't been putting this
requirement on until it became the new code, we had been asking -- this is consistent
with what we have been asking for probably a year or so.
Rohm: Right.
Zaremba: I'm for that.
Rohm: I think we are all in agreement on that.
Zaremba: I would comment on the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile that you're
going to make a whole lot of other people very jealous about what's happening at that
intersection. ACHD in their budget constraints is not moving as fast as anybody would
like them to move. They understand that these things need to be done, but we end up
having to prioritize them, because of their restrictive budget and any help that you can
give to the community in that, assuming you will get paid back eventually, is definitely
appreciated.
Borup: But is there anything we can do to encourage ACHD to accept that proposal?
From what I understand right now, they haven't.
Zaremba: The one thing that I would do -- J know that the Meridian Transportation Task
Force, which is headed by Steve Siddoway, is in the process of making
recommendations to the City Council that they will make to ACHD and I would contact
Steve and make sure that this is on that list and the issue is unless it is on ACHD's
capital improvements plan, it is not reimbursement eligible and we have discussed this
issue with Pine Avenue and the developer that wants to build there, it's not on ACHD's
list either, and it's the thinking of the City of Meridian that they should be on that list and
be reimbursement eligible. It's in the best interest of Meridian to have these things
accomplished and anything that boosts the timeline is in our best interest. So, I think
this is an excellent proposal and, actually, all around I think this is an excellent proposal.
I have to comment that when we read some proposals, the thought occurs to me that
the applicant must have stayed up late trying to figure out what they could put by the
Commission and the staff. When I see proposals from this applicant, I think she stays
up trying to figure out what she can offer the city that was better than her last project
and, you know, that's very much appreciated. As far as growth, this is not only the kind
of thing that the Comprehensive Plan does envision for this area, which was worked on
by a lot of people in very public meetings, but I think it goes beyond it and offers more
and I would -- I can imagine the applicant probably has discussions with clients that ask
her to do things and she pushes back and says, no, this is not good for Meridian and I
wouldn't even be surprised if she's lost some clients because of that, which is a brave
thing to do. It doesn't mean the clients don't show up with somebody else -- one of your
competitors who is trying to put something over on us, but I just want to say, as staff
pointed out, if what we are discussing is the fences, that is an issue that can be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 47 of 85
resolved. I just want to say I appreciate the projects and the designs that this applicant
brings and I see nothing in here that would not benefit Meridian. I think it's a good
project.
Borup: I agree. This is probably the most non-cookie cutter subdivision we have had
before us.
Zaremba: And I would even comment -- again, this doesn't mean we are going to stop
inspecting all of your applications closely, but I have seen a new initiative in this packet,
we even have the letter -- a copy of the letter that the applicant sent out to hold a
neighborhood meeting. I mean these are -- that may seem like a small thing, but she
takes the initiative to help us do our job and that's appreciated.
Moe: Well, I guess the only comments I would like to make -- I hate to make you feel so
good tonight, but, quite frankly, I was very pleased with this -- with this application.
There is a -- quite frankly, in the Comp Plan this area is basically noted as an R-8.
Basically, I have seen projects that have come through here that are R-8 that are, quite
frankly, every bit of the land that is available they are putting anywhere from a 4,500
square foot lots all the way to maybe 6,000 and they are still not meeting the 6,500
square foot that I want to see in the R-8s. This development is very well laid out, there
is a lot of amenities, there is a great mix and, quite frankly, I think comments from the
public tonight, as far as for shopping and whatnot, I think that will come. I think the
applicant brought that up earlier, that some of the roof-tops do need to be in place in
order for some of this commercial to happen. I do believe this is going to be a definite
benefit to this area, I really do, and I think you do need to be commended, you have
done a great job on this.
Zaremba: I would comment for the record that we have each received a copy of the
Engineering Solutions' letter in response to the staff report. My question would be do
we want to contemplate continuing this so we can study it? Clearly staff has had time to
study it. Would we just like staff to walk us through what we would need to change in
their report to make a motion tonight?
Borup: I feel comfortable with what staff as done and what Becky has done that we
could do that. We could go through and --
Zaremba: We would ask staff to walk us through what we need to say.
Borup: That would be my preference.
Rohm: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the testimony just for a
moment. Some of the testimony was that this contributes to urban sprawl and there is
not the infrastructure to handle the additional traffic that this development will generate.
That's as it is with all developments within the state of Idaho. We don't have the same
vehicles that other states have that build infrastructure first and, then, development
comes second. And if that were the case, we would have Ten Mile, we would have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 48 of 85
McDermott, we would have all of the infrastructure all already in place and that's just not
going to happen until we have the development like this that is well planned out and
once this has built out you will see the infrastructure improvements to the roadways to
accommodate the very things that you addressed and that's alii have to say about that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I did notice there was one comment on the stub street. I think it's
Drawbridge right to the south -- the little cul-de-sac and, Craig, you had mentioned that
we should stub that and it looks to me like, Becky, you would like to not stub that. Was
it -- oh, the neighbors of Drawbridge were not interested in having the stub street.
Zaremba: That is often the case. ACHD and the City of Meridian's attitude usually is
we need to provide for connectivity and, you know, when we are under growth pressure,
we need to make sure that it happens in an orderly manner and that the transportation
issues of the future are served, even if a person is intending not to develop their
property right this minute --
Borup: Well, they have got to cross the canal.
Zaremba: -- past history and even other places show that within their next generation or
so that could change.
Newton-Huckabay: Now you understand that is across the canal, too.
Zaremba: I missed that. Say that again.
Newton-Huckabay: It goes across the drain.
Borup: So, the Drawbridge stub stubs to a canal?
Newton-Huckabay: To the canal.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct, and I did contact
ACHD as well to see if they had half of the monies for a culvert or a bridge and they did
not have any money and neither does -- the city is not holding any money as well. I did
talk with Becky about this, because in ACHD's staff report initially it did not have the
requirement to extend it, so I thought maybe that's why they weren't requiring it. I don't
know if that staff report -- just an oversight, I guess, on their part, but it is a requirement
of the highway district and they are going to have to, out of their pocket, figure out how
to cross that drain, so -- but the stub was put there for a reason and that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 49 of 85
interconnectivity of the development. So, I just wanted to give you some background on
that, I guess.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we take a short break for about
ten minutes --
Zaremba: Traditionally, we do that about 9:00 o'clock. Let me get a sense of how fast
we are likely to wrap this one up.
Rohm: I think we are going to have to go through the whole packet with staff providing
feedback on the differences between the Engineering Solutions and their original
proposal -- staff report.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I have about three comments, the only ones that I think that we aren't
in agreement on, and I guess Becky can stand up and holler and shout if that's not the
case, but I think the fencing -- I mean three changes that I see. I mean I went through
already with their -- everything that they bolded as far as the Planning and the Public
Works Department are concerned. And even one from the Parks Department. So, I
anticipate it to be pretty quick. Becky's pretty close, so if I misstate something --
Zaremba: Think we can wrap this up in five or ten minutes and, then, take a break?
Borup: So, fencing and --
Moe: So, Craig, 1.1.9, basically, we just want to make sure that we note that the micro-
path and the open space are four foot solid and, then, we -- and, then, the six foot open
vision -- I'll let you --
Hood: Yeah. That's the first one. Four foot -- maximum of four foot adjacent to micro-
paths and, then, interior common open spaces, which that should clear it up, that
adjacent to streets and things they can do a six foot solid, but adjacent to interior open
spaces, they can either do a foot four solid or a six foot open vision.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: On the subject of fences, which leads to micro-paths, I did hear agreement to
put a micro-path somewhere in this area on that northeast --
Hood: And that is already a condition.
Zaremba: -- northwest block I mean. Okay.
Hood: And that condition -- so it's not a change.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 50 of 85
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: The applicant was originally not in agreement, but I think they are okay now.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hood: 1.2.2 is the next one I have here and that was just new calculations based on
whatever areas they need for sand at the bottom of those need to be excluded from
their open space calculations. So, prior to City Council submit new open space
calculations for those areas. Something to that effect. 1.1.8.B -- this is in south --
Volterra South, that, again, is the fencing condition, but it's specific to -- well, I guess
remove the first sentence, which states that the applicant shall clarify what type of
fencing, because they have done that. And I think we just need to add -- I would like to
keep the open vision. I think that's the same as what the other condition was -- on both
sides of the White Drain and, then, on the south side of the Settler's Canal -- I guess
that one needs to be modified, the last sentence. I'm sorry. Allow a six-foot solid on the
south side of the Settler's, but it's only a three-foot maximum height on the north side of
the sidewalk. Does that make sense? I'm sorry. I wish I would have brought a cross-
section of it.
Borup: Six foot by the drain, three foot by the sidewalk.
Moe: Six foot solid.
Borup: Both solid.
Moe: Three foot solid.
Borup: Clarification. Does that apply to both the Settler's and the White Drain?
Hood: No. The White Drain should be either the four-foot solid or the six-foot open
vision, like any other open space. Just along the Settler's.
Borup: So, it was the Settler's that had the six-foot --
Hood: solid.
Borup: -- against the property lots --
Hood: Correct.
Borup: -- and three foot between the sidewalk and the ditch.
Hood: Correct. And, then, the final change that I have in the planning is 1.2.2.B and
it's the same comment that was in one -- whatever the other one was, to supply new
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6. 2005
Page 51 of 85
open space calcs for whatever areas are going to be sand in the bottom of the -- and
that number was --
Moe: 1.2.2. 1.2.2.
Hood: 1.2.2.B. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. And I guess the only other comment that I had
was in the Parks Department, that was the -- their 5.1 and if you want to just use the
applicant's verbiage that they have proposed in their letter, that would probably be --
Moe: I just noted that to be constructed in accordance with the Parks and Recreation
system plan.
Hood: You probably don't want to reference their plan, because that's the one that
wants it to be an HS20 or whatever it is.
Moe: Okay.
Hood: So, just coordinate the construction with the Public Works Department or
something to that effect.
Moe: With the Parks Department you mean?
Hood: Yeah. That's fine.
Moe: Then, the only other thing I would question would be the fire department. Can we
just leave it as the signage only and just get rid of the painting of the curb?
Hood: I'm not prepared to put words in their -- I don't know what their requirements are.
If you want to change that, I guess that's your prerogative, but I'm not familiar enough
with their code to know if that's something for just commercial areas or if it applies in
residential and commercial or what.
Borup: That was the only question I had, if they meant for it to apply in the commercial.
Hood: That's a question that I have, I just don't know--
Borup: So, maybe we could say that it does not apply in the residential and leave it at
that.
Zaremba: Or phrase it so that we ask the fire department to reconsider that part of it.
Newton-Huckabay: There you go. That's my preference.
Borup: Mr. Cole had a comment.
Zaremba: Mr. Cole.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 52 of 85
Cole: Mr. Chairman, I believe that, generally -- I don't want to speak for Mr. Silva who
made these comments with the fire department, but it is my understanding that
generally he means these only in commercial sections. It's not general practice
anywhere in the city of Meridian to paint 20 feet red curbing along residential streets
where the majority of our hydrants are located on 400-foot intervals. I don't want to
change Mr. Silva's conditions, but in the residential areas it's generally not done.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Always.
Moe: I guess I would just maybe add to the end sentence -- as directed by the fire
department. I think, basically, it talks about all fire lanes painted red -- curb red and
provide signage and no parking lane -- fire lane. I just think as directed -- I would
assume the applicant can get with the fire department to verify where they do have to
do it.
Zaremba: Or as coordinated with the fire department, maybe.
Borup: That's assuming the fire department doesn't have a policy change here.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, would this not cover that?
Zaremba: I think that's why we need to phrase it in a way that they will be asked, but
we certainly support not having it in residential.
Borup: Right
Zaremba: And to just -- I don't know how to put it, but what we are asking is for the fire
department to clarify their wording.
Moe: As coordinated by the fire department.
Newton-Huckabay: Why can't we just put it that way?
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Get clarification on the fire department's intentions prior to City
Council.
Zaremba: That works for me. Commissioner Moe, did you hear that?
Moe: No, I -- it sounds like I'm making this motion.
Rohm: You're the man.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6. 2005
Page 53 of 85
Zaremba: We are leaning on your tonight.
Moe: Coordinated -- as coordinated by the fire department doesn't work?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if you want the fire department to clarify their statement, why
not just ask the fire department to clarify their statement.
Zaremba: As to whether it applies to residential.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Or could we add another sentence saying that the -- that the painted fire lanes
apply in the commercial and the signage would apply in both?
Moe: No, because, then, you're, basically, telling the fire department what we want and
I think they are the ones that need to clarify what they want. Okay.
Zaremba: But I think from the minutes it will be understood that we are certainly
agreeable to not having it --
Moe: I'm sure we can talk about this about another five minutes or so and we will get
this one figured out. Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. Next?
Cole: I believe Craig's done. These would be Public Work comments.
Zaremba: Okay. It's working.
Cole: Number one -- 2.1. This one is going to be rather wordy. At the end of that
comment the applicant shall be able to gravity the portion of land --
Moe: Oh, wait a minute.
Newton-Huckabay: Shall be able to gravitate --
Cole: Would you like me just to state it and you can reference it?
Moe: Yes.
Cole: At the end of 2.1, the applicant shall be able to gravity the portion of land shown
to be sewered by the master sewer plan from the Ten Mile Trunk. Any land that can
gravity passed that line shall be modeled at the developer's expense and, then, may be
sewered only at the Public Work's director's discretion. No substandard grades shall be
allowed, nor artificial fill designed to increase sewer expansion. End of sentence. 2.9,]
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 54 of 85
believe the applicant has changed to comply completely with the comment, so she
withdraws her complaint to that comment. 2.13, if I can just add after vacate any, add
the word recorded drainage or irrigation easement. If they are proscriptive, they need
not be vacated. However, if they are a recorded easement, the applicant will agree to
vacate them.
Moe: Just the word recorded after any?
Cole: Yes.
Moe: Okay.
Cole: 2.15. Public Works is not telling her she can or cannot landscape in that
easement, we are just asking that she dedicate it for the public utilities and so I would
recommend that she agrees to comply with that -- that condition and, then, coordinate
with the public utilities in question for what they do or do not allow in their easement.
So, I believe she will just agree to that condition as well and I see her shaking her head.
One additional condition that I would like to bring up is 2.13 in relation to the gentleman
that's located just south of this development. 2.13 states vacate -- oh. 2.14. I'm sorry.
Verify that unnamed ditches that are shown as being abandoned do not serve any
downstream users. If these ditches are still being used, the applicant shall pipe these
facilities. I would add there -- or maintain them in a manner approved by said user after
the facility is there. Becky?
Zaremba: Do we want to go so far as approve it by the users or just in coordination with
the other users?
Cole: I would prefer to have written approval by the end users, but she appears not to
want to agree to that.
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open, if you have another suggestion.
Borup: Don't they just need to provide the water?
Cole: Before Mrs. McKay gets up and speaks, the same conditions are in south --
Volterra South, so the rewording in Volterra South would be the same as the ones in
Volterra North, in relation to -- 2.1 would be 2.B.1. 2.8.12--
Moe: Wait a minute. Oh,2.B.12.
Cole: Would be the same as 2.13. And 2.B.13 would be the same as 2.15. And I will
stand for questions.
Moe: You just said 2.B.13 would be the same as which one? 2.8.13--
Cole: Would be the same as 2.15.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 55 of 85
Moe: 2.15?
Cole: Yes, sir.
Moe: I thought -- well -- and 2.15 I thought was okay.
Cole: Correct. She's agreeing -- 2.B -- she had --
Moe: So, it doesn't change?
Cole: It doesn't change, but she has changed her mind to agree to comply with that.
Moe: Okay. Can we go back to 2.14, then, and get some clarification. Number one, as
you were discussing it you said: Or maintain as per -- I didn't catch the rest of that and I
know she's not in agreement, so we will get to that, but -- shall pipe these facilities or
maintain as --
Cole: Or maintain them as approved by downstream user.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: I have a suggestion that might get us through the difficulty here. It's state law
that they can't change the use, so rather than having it be as approved by the
downstream user, just as required by applicable law and it's between the developer and
the private party to make sure that that happens, but it's really not a fight that we want to
get in the middle of.
Zaremba: I think that's an excellent --
Borup: So, they just need to have the water delivered at the same historical location.
Cole: That's the state statute, yes.
Zaremba: Well -- and does that apply to drainage as well? Do we have to pick up
drainage?
Cole: Yes, I believe so.
Zaremba: I like the applicable law wording.
Borup: And all that does -- it says you can change the location of the ditch within their
property, as long as it's delivered at the same place as it has been historically, doesn't
it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 56 of 85
Zaremba: They have to end up with the same essential --
Borup: Same flow, same location.
Zaremba: Yeah. How it gets to them is flexible. It may be appropriate to close the
Public Hearing.
Borup: Did we need -- I thought I understood Mrs. McKay had some clarification on --
Moe: He just cleared that one up.
Borup: That was it on that ditch thing? That was the only thing?
Zaremba: And I agree with her --
Borup: I thought you said something about that easement. Did I misunderstand that?
Cole: The easement --
Borup: You were referring to the ditch was the only thing?
Cole: Ditches in this development that are being rerouted or piped.
Borup: Right.
Cole: The condition reads, vacate the easements. Mrs. McKay said that they were
proscriptive in nature and, therefore, not vacatable.
Borup: Okay.
Cole: So, I just added the word recorded, which she agreed with.
Borup: Okay. Very good. Yeah. Let's move on.
Zaremba: In that case, I believe closing the public hearings on these four items would
be an appropriate motion.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-040, PP 05-039,
and PP 05-040, and CUP 05-041,
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 57 of 85
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, we have all been depending on you to be prepared for
this one.
Moe: Yeah. Me, too.
Zaremba: It's a shame we can't just make a motion to include all minutes of the
meeting.
Moe: Yeah. Really. Okay. Well, we will start out, then -- Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Let's see here. I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
AZ 05-040, to include all staff comments of the hearing date -- as soon as I can find
that.
Newton-Huckabay: October 6th.
Moe: Of the hearing date of October the 6th, 2005, received by the Clerk's Office
October 3rd, 2005. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-039,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, received by the
city clerk's office October 3rd, 2005, with the following changes: Under the site specific
requirements under -- for the planning department, the first item being 1.1.9, I'd like to
add a sentence -- or basically just clarify that, that the fencing requirements will be for
micro-paths and open spaces to be either four foot solid or six-foot open vision fencing
at the interior open space.
Borup: Do we need to -- I don't know if we need to clarify interior open space, as
opposed to linear open space along roadways or does that make any difference?
Moe: I think this motion -- we were there are fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 58 of 85
Borup: Okay.
Moe: Next item, under 1.2.2, like to add an additional sentence to read: Provide new
calculations for open space before the City Council meetings on this project. Next item
would be under 1.1.8.B, to include a sentence that would read that the fencing would be
a three foot solid fencing at the Settler's Canal and a six foot solid fencing at the
property line at the south side. Next item would be 1.1 .1.2. B and that would be to add
an additional sentence to also provide new calculations for open space before the City
Council meeting.
Borup: Are you going to combine both file numbers?
Zaremba: I was going to suggest that we combine them both --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: -- of the PPs in this motion.
Moe: Yes.
Borup: Okay. That's -- good.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: So, all of the things that you're relating apply to PP 05-039 and PP 05-040?
Moe: That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Good.
Moe: Do I need to restate one or did we get that one?
Newton-Huckabay: We got it.
Zaremba: We got it.
Moe: Okay. The next one. The next item would be under 2.1 of the Public Works
Department comments and that would be a sentence at the end that would refer to
Michael Cole's statements in regards to that item. The next item would be under 2.13,
in the first sentence after vacate any -- please put recorded existing drainage or
irrigation easements. Next item would be under 2.B.12, would be the same as that
would be vacate any and, then, include the word recorded existing drainage or irrigation
easements. Next item would be under the fire department comments under 3.7, to add
just at the end of that sentence to -- for all fire lane -- for all fire lanes paint the curbs red
and provided signage no parking fire lanes, as clarified by the fire department.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 59 of 85
Cole: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Yes.
Cole: On comment 2.B.1 would you like to add my comment at the end of that, similar
to condition 2.1?
Moe: I'm sorry, two point--
Cole: 2.B.1. It's the sewer condition.
Moe: I sure will.
Cole: Thank you, sir.
Moe: I'll just state that now. Under 2.B.1, under the site-specific comments for the
south subdivision, last sentence, please refer to Michael Cole's statements in that
location. And, let's see here, I'm back to -- the fire department's done. Under the Parks
Department's comments under 5.1 -- basically, what I think I would like to do is just
strike that entire comment out and just basically redo it and note it to be pathways and
trails to be constructed in accordance -- or as directed by the Parks Department. End of
-- yes.
Cole: Under Public Works 2.14, would you like to add Mr. Baird's addition of complying
with --
Moe: I'm sorry. Thank you. You're right. Didn't mark that. That's why I didn't get that.
Under 2.14, in the second sentence, after: If these ditches are still being used, the
applicant shall pipe these facilities or maintain them as per -- as per law. As per state
law. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you. CUP.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of
CUP 05-041, to include all staff comments of the hearing date October 6, 2005,
received by the city clerk's office October 3rd, 2005. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 60 of 85
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. And as earlier requested, we have gone well past
our 9:00 o'clock traditional break and we will take a break at this point and reconvene --
let's make it 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29
single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that
includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street
frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Zaremba: All right. We will reconvene our meeting this evening and let the record show
that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-
042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we will
begin as usual with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications
are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development consisting of 29 build-able lots and eight common other lots on
8.57 acres. The site is located, as you can see, on the overhead on the southwest
corner of Eagle and Victory. The adjacent properties are pretty much rural residential
as you can see around. Across the -- across Eagle Road the city did recently approve a
two-lot subdivision. The existing single-family house is going to stay and, then, they are
proposing some assisted living. They are capable of self-preservation, a retirement
community there on the south side of Falcon Drive. There is a future elementary school
planned in this location. Messina Hills Subdivision -- this aerial is a little bit old. You
can see the overlay of the actual lots in Messina. Some of those homes are there
today. That was Maxfield Subdivision. I'm sorry, I forgot the name of that, but Maxfield
Subdivision there. Pretty much everything else around it is still rural residential, zoned
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 61 of 85
RUT in Ada County. Just a couple of things on the proposed development. The
applicant is proposing 22 single-family lots. All of those lots -- I guess I should note, first
off, before I get too far looking at the plat, the original preliminary plat, the one that you
had in your packet, did have a street that aligned with Falcon Drive. Subsequent to the
transmittals going out, ACHD met with the applicant and at least one neighbor in this
area, about their concerns about Falcon Drive and traffic in the area, specifically getting
in and out of Falcon Drive. The entrance into this subdivision has subsequently been
moved to the south property line or just near the south property line, so my comments in
the staff report were based on this revised drawing changing that street location and
some other minor changes that are also called out in the staff report, but I did just want
to make you aware of that. So, the 22 single family home lots are, basically, on the
west side of the main north-south road in the development all on this side and, then,
when you get to the northwest corner of the development, the multi-family -- or multi-
family units, seven of them along Eagle and -- six along Eagle, I guess, and one along
Victory Road, four-plexes, so there is 28 multi-family units, for a total of 50 dwelling
units on the eight plus acres. There were a couple of things that in the staff report were
called out as needing clarification. I guess just to jump to the chase, the staff is
recommending that the action by this board be a couple of things, I guess, or at your
discretion based on the public hearings and how you feel about this development. Long
story short, the applicant submitted a rezone application -- annexation application for a
zone that does not allow multi-family dwelling units. So, the city cannot approve this
development as submitted. So, the options you have are to either limit them through
the planned development ordinance to a maximum of 20 percent of the site being used
for multi-family or to have -- require the applicant to submit a new application, if you like
this design, basically, for an R-15 zone for the eastern portion of this site and come
back before you, because we do need to notice those neighbors that it is a higher zone
that's being requested. Basically be the same development, but the zoning and city
ordinance just does not allow it as proposed. So, with that -- and without getting into
some of the other tot lot and private open space and dumpster locations, I guess I will
leave staff comments at that, unless you want me to go into further descriptions on
those.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions or further knowledge you need at this
point? All right. Thank you. We will ask for the applicant to come forward, please.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioners and Madam Commissioner. For the record, my
name is Kevin Amar. Address 36 East Pine in Meridian. And I'm here tonight
representing Medford Place Subdivision. It is a 29-lot subdivision, 50 dwelling units.
And when we first acquired this property we approached the city and were actually
approached by some of the neighbors thinking that this area -- my pointer is a little weak
tonight But this area in here would be an ideal spot for some sort of commercial or light
office and was informed that -- that the Comprehensive Plan is for medium density
residential, up to eight dwelling units to the acre and the city would in no way support
light office. So, we are proposing -- and have met with the neighbors on numerous
occasions -- a residential zone, but maintaining this transition from Eagle and Victory,
which, admittedly are busy, highly traveled areas, with a multi-family unit and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 62 of 85
transitioning into a single family detached unit in this area. In the neighborhood meeting
-- we had a neighborhood meeting and, then, met with the neighbors on various
occasions to discuss this project and have here tonight three of the neighbors who -- I'm
going to speak for them and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe are primarily
concerned -- they were the ones that requested the relocation of the access from ACHD
and we did comply and the primary concern, I believe, is the traffic, which we all
understand is an issue. Overland Road -- or, I'm sorry, Victory and Eagle are slated to
be improved. They will follow the Cloverdale and Victory intersection improvements and
is on the ACHD five-year plan and is actually a funded project. So, it is in the process of
being signalized and improving this road, as well as Victory, for a better -- now it's just a
four way stop. It will be a signalized intersection. As I stated, we had a neighborhood
meeting and we probably had a dozen neighbors there. But I believe after speaking
with them and talking about our intent and the type of the building we were doing and
the type for the four-plexes, which I do have a picture, that satisfied many of them and --
thank you very much. This is, actually, a picture for the four-plex, so when you look at it
it looks more like a single-family dwelling. There is an entry point at this location and,
then, from there there is a vestibule inside that you can enter into the actual units or go
upstairs and enter into the other units. Our intent was to create more of a residential
feel, rather than a commercial or a multi-family feel and is this what we are proposing to
build out there. There mayor may not be a door there, but it will be the same -- the
same look. It will have porches on it, on the four-plexes, and the balance of the project,
the single family homes will also be strongly encouraged to incorporate that same porch
design, so it gives more of the -- the old town -- people sitting on their porches and
enjoying the neighbors and the whole area. We have 5.8 dwelling units per acre. We
have got 19 percent total open space, which is almost two acres. Twelve percent is
actually usable open space. So, it exceeds the five percent. We have requested a
PUD with this application and in the PUD one of staffs comments was with respect to
this tot lot in this location and I'm referencing the colored map now. They were
concerned that the tot lot was from the rest of the project. We are, actually, proposing
two separate tot lots, one in this location and one in this location, to provide areas in
both the north and the south. And, then, another comment was also this pathway that
would connect to the future school site, which we are also proposing a pathway to
connect the future school site. So, I believe all the concerns with respect to the staff
report -- we are in agreement with the staff report. When we submitted the PUD, we
submitted it as an R-8 PUD and did not realize that you were not allowed, in any event,
to have multi-family or a four-plex unit. We have met with Craig and staff and came to
the determination -- and I believe staff said it best -- that they would rather the
application stay the same and submit for an R-15. In doing that, my proposal would be
to -- with the development agreement still limit the density to the density we have here.
We are not trying to increase the density within an R-15, we are just complying with the
applicable rules for this project. I believe with that I would stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 63 of 85
Borup: Just a quick question on the rezone area. Unless I misunderstood, Craig, do
they have the option of just zoning the property on the perimeter, the R-15, and leaving
the other R-8? Was that your intention, then?
Amar: That was our intent and I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: So, the area that has the four-plexes would be the R-15, the balance would
remain at R-8.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: But I know the neighbors will be concerned that somebody may come in and not
do four-plexes and do something else. My intent would be to put that in the
development agreement and limit it to the density of whatever it is, 5.83 units to the acre
and we still have the same project.
Borup: And with the same style of four-plex.
Amar: Correct. And that can be referenced also.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members --
Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Hood.
Hood: -- of the Commission, I just -- just a couple things. One, with the rezone
application, just so the applicant knows, typically that rezone will go to the center line of
the roadway, so if that's the way that the Commission is leaning, if you could just make
that clear, that we need a new legal description with the -- the zone should go to the
center line of the roadway. The second thing that I guess I -- just so this will make the
next hearing that much quicker, this is the only elevation that you did submit and I was
curious if this is the front elevation and, in fact, if the front is towards Eagle Road or if
this is towards your internal and if, in fact, either way, what does the back look like, I
guess, because one of them is going to be facing Eagle Road, so what our people -- the
majority of the people that are driving by are going to be seeing -- is it this elevation or is
there another elevation?
Amar: This elevation, actually, will be seen by the interior streets. This property is
unique in that the elevation of the property is significantly lower than the -- both Eagle
and Victory. So, that from Eagle and Victory, especially up in this corner, although they
are two story dwellings, I mean they won't appear to be two story, just because the --
right now the property is about eight to ten feet below the road. With the future road
improvements it will be four to six feet below the road, which still means your building is
only going to be seeing a portion of it and what we have proposed is to screen this
access with trees and different things. So, our intent is that we don't want a lot of vision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6. 2005
Page 64 of 85
to the four-plexes from Eagle. I can get elevations of the rear, but I really hope that we
don't even see the rear of the elevations from this project. We will be fencing it with a
six foot vinyl fence and, then, also putting those -- that landscaping and so, hopefully --
obviously, you're going to see them, but it will be less obtrusive than a two story
dwelling on the road.
Zaremba: Let me ask the mechanics. I, actually, would be interested in seeing an
elevation of what are the -- the people on Eagle going to see and if that's the back, then,
that isn't this, but it sounds like there is a mechanics of -- I guess I'm not talking about
mechanics. A timeline. If you apply to actually make this portion of it the R-15 and we
want to keep all of it together before it goes to the City Council, I would assume, we are
at some point going to continue our current discussion and where do we think we are
going to continue to, and at that time could you bring a rear vision -- or an Eagle side
vision, is what I would ask for. So, the first question to you is can you do that by the
time we hear it again?
Amar: Yes, I can.
Zaremba: And the question of staff is when is that likely to be?
Hood: Tomorrow.
Amar: Okay.
Hood: No. No.
Amar: If you can get it done my tomorrow, I will have the --
Zaremba: In the morning? I have an appointment in the afternoon.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we anticipate if the applicant can get us
that rezone application by the 15th -- or, actually, the 14th of this month, which is next
Friday, the first of December would be that hearing. So, if we have a complete
application -- which we anticipate -- a rezone application is pretty -- you have the
application pretty much filled out already, so a new legal description would need to be
prepared, but we anticipate December 1 st, if you can continue the other two items to the
December 1st hearing and, then, let that rezone catch up, we can, again, hear these
items or the continued items and any rezone application on the 1 st of December.
Amar: And that's --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: That's acceptable?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 65 of 85
Amar: That's acceptable. The thought with bringing it forward still tonight was that
notice has already gone out to the neighbors, so we might as well have our discussion
tonight.
Zaremba: Sure.
Amar: One thing I did not mention was with respect to fencing. I mentioned it briefly on
both Victory and Eagle. That will be a six-foot vinyl fence, a solid fence, and, then,
adjacent to all the common areas will actually be a four-foot vinyl -- solid vinyl fence. I
know that was a topic of discussion in the last hearing and I didn't want that to be a
question in this hearing.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? All right. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Zaremba: Also signed up is Bob Aldridge. Thank you.
Aldridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bob Aldridge, 3300
Falcon Drive. Let's see. I don't have a pointer.
Zaremba: Here, you can use mine.
Aldridge: I'm right there. And I'm probably the most affected neighbor in terms of
partially the vision line, but especially the traffic. I have been living there for over 20
years now and our problem is right here. When I come out in the morning there is traffic
stopped from here clear back down passed Tuscany. I get in when somebody lets me
come into that solid line. That was our concern and that's why when initially the ACHD
requested a hearing, which would have been held yesterday and, then, had a meeting
with staff and with the developer and we felt that moving the road down here would
alleviate a lot of that problem, because we were really concerned about people coming
to this and trying to come across and merge into this traffic that right now is stopped and
when the light comes in is going to be moving at a fair rate of speed and we think that
will alleviate a lot by having that road. So, that was my major concern with the project
and we wanted to make sure it was kept. We also want to urge the Commissioners to
continue to look at the traffic problem on Eagle. Right now the intersection's going in --
and that's in the five year plan, but the only road improvements between Victory and
Amity aren't scheduled until 2011 -- until 2017 and that's increased to a three lane road.
So, we are considerably out and only to a three-lane road. You have got five heavy
lanes of traffic coming from the north, funneling down -- you're approving a lot of
projects on out south. The Kingsbridge, for example, is breaking ground right now just
over across the road. It's been approved on its first phase. So, there is going to be a lot
of traffic on Eagle and there has got to be an overall plan to affect that put in place. I
think between ACHD and the city they are going to have to figure out what's going to
happen with Eagle Road or we are simply going to go right back to having massive
problems like we now have north of the freeway. And so that's, really, the second part
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 66 of 85
of coming before you is to request that you look at that as you go through other projects
and as you interact with ACHD. We do like the design. I was one of the neighbors that
thought it should be some sort of office, et cetera, that -- you know, for 15 years at least
[ thought that's where it was going to go, but we understand that both ACHD and the
city simply don't want that to happen, they believe it should be residential. And so if it's
going to be residential, we think this is a good design and a good use of the property.
Be happy to answer any questions.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Let's see. That
covers everybody that was signed up, although if somebody else would care to speak --
sir, come forward.
Hartenstein: Thank you. My name is Mark Hartenstein. I had attempted to live at the
southeast corner, which is 32 South Eagle Road, which is a piece of property my family
has purchased about a year and a half ago. I currently live at 601 Beacon Street, just
for the record. I plan to move to that corner location and operate a law practice and do
a home office and live in the back. I found the location so noisy that I thought it would
be impossible to live there. I bring that to your attention partly because we are trying to
figure out what to do with the corners, since we don't think it's suitable for residential.
And I know as you probably mayor may not be aware, we will be coming back before
the Commission sometime in the next few weeks -- I think on the 17th as part of this
Eagle Road Alliance, thinking that the area should probably be offices and possibly
some neighborhood or community retail and I would like to comment on Bob Aldridge's
observation. There is an enormous amount of development going on south that's
largely residential. It will contribute a lot of additional traffic coming toward that
intersection and the intersection is already extremely busy, extremely backed up and I
urge the Commission and any notes that can go back to ACHD to try to get higher --
move up the priority of moving that road from two or three lanes to five lines certainly as
far back as Amity and certainly in as short of time frame as currently planned. And I
think with that that's all my final comments. If you have any questions I would be glad to
address them.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to add
anything? Yes. Come forward.
Krasinski: Good evening. My name is Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East
Falcon Drive. I'm the last house on Falcon Drive. And I just -- my only comment -- the
previous speakers have echoed my ideas on traffic and I have spoken before the
Commission before about that. The only thing I would like to add is if we are going to
go with a zone of R-15 there, J would just be concerned as you continue to approve
things on the south side of Victory, that that doesn't become the norm. I think R-15 is
appropriate if -- I think that the four-plexes look nice that that right there on that busy
intersection, that makes sense to buffer, you know, the residential, but I just wouldn't
want that to become the standard as we move forward and go along south there of
Victory. So, that would be my only comment. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 67 of 85
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: I agree with that.
Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment? Okay. Mr. Amar.
Amar: Thank you. I will be very brief. I appreciated working with the neighbors. It's
actually been -- at the ACHD meeting I think it was Mr. Aldridge said this is the easiest
controversial meeting I have ever had. Something to that effect. It improved the
project. Listening to the neighbors actually did help and we have moved the traffic away
from their drive and I do appreciate their help and think we'd like to continue forward. I
know we have got to make another application with the R-15 zoning, if that's your
decision and that's what I have requested this evening.
Zaremba: Any questions?
Borup: A minor question. Since this is a CUP, you have shown us a picture of the four-
plex, which is wonderful. We have been talking about trying to get something like that in
the city for a long time. But I assume from what you said that the single-family homes
are Craftsman style?
Amar: Yeah. They will be Craftsman style. They will be encouraged to have porches-
- not required, but certainly encouraged and the different architectural relief that that
brings.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: I guess this isn't actually an issue for your application and maybe staff would
want to weigh in on this, but I can agree with the consensus of the neighbors that along
Eagle Road that may be more appropriate to be something other than residential. I
don't have a problem with what you're proposing, but I agree that the bulk of the
properties facing Eagle Road are probably going to need to be office or neighborhood
commercial or something like that and I don't know whether staff has forecasting -- I
know that's not what the Comprehensive Plan says at the moment, but as we grow we
learn things that need to change in the Comprehensive Plan. Any opinion from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess I'm somewhat -- I don't know, maybe the attorney
said -- since there is a pending application to discuss that exact issue and this meeting
wasn't noticed to discuss this area -- I mean I certainly can give you a summary of what
that is, but I guess I'm --
Borup: Or we could wait until --
Hawkins-Clark: -- wondering if that's appropriate.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 68 of 85
Zaremba: So, perhaps I'm out of line to ask that question.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're not necessarily out of line, but it
would be our advice that you hold off on that discussion until it's up for discussion on the
17th.
Zaremba: And the point is made, anybody that's interested in that subject, it is coming
up on Monday, the 17th, at 7:00 o'clock. So, I will hold off my questions on that and it
didn't apply to this application anyhow, so --
Amar: Then I won't respond.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from anybody? All right. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Rohm: My question really is if we are going to -- if the applicant's going to apply for a
new preliminary plat with an R-15 -- or just a change --
Borup: Just change the zoning is what they need to change.
Rohm: So, then, all three of these can just be continued?
Zaremba: I think so.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: As a group. And to our first meeting in December; is that what we were
suggesting?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's what I would recommend and if by
chance we don't have the application, we can just continue it out for another two weeks
or four weeks or whatever.
Rohm: That will be it.
Zaremba: That would be December 1 st.
Hood: But I did just want to make one note that the two applications -- we will need two
new legal descriptions, one for what's remaining on R-8 -- proposed R-8 and one that's
R-15. So, probably the new application -- it may just be easier to have a new
annexation and zoning application with two separate zoning requests, rather than --
because the old one was for 8.57 acres of all R-8 and the new application would just be
for 8.57 acres and four of it's R-8 and four of it's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 69 of 85
Rohm: That's why I was asking if we -- we wouldn't continue something that's not going
to continue.
Hood: Correct.
Rohm: Just close those out and, then, the package would be re-noticed and re --
issued new numbers for the December 1 st meeting.
Hood: But just for the annexation and zoning. The preliminary plat and the Conditional
Use Permit can be continued to the 1 st and the other one you can -- I don't know -- what
should we do with the other one? I'm not even --
Rohm: That's why I was asking the question.
Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have a --
Newton-Huckabay: Deny it.
Zaremba: We could ask the applicant to withdraw it.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think in order to give staff the
maximum flexibility if we continue it, then, they can -- at an administrative level they can
either withdraw it, amend it, supplement it -- does that make sense to you over there?
I'm getting nods. So, basically, if our action is to continue it, they can make the
appropriate changes and bring it back at that date certain.
Zaremba: So, continue all three as is. Yeah. As it.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 1 st,
2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 60
single-family residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 23.9
acres in a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 70 of 85
Primeland Development, LLP - north of West Ustick Road and west of
North Linder Road:
Zaremba: Okay. I will now open the public hearings for PP 05-044. This relates to
Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by Primeland Development and we will begin
with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Just getting the
slide set up here. This application is a new preliminary plat within Bridgetower Crossing
Subdivision and what's shown on the screen right now is the original preliminary plat,
just so you can get a feel for the area. This is the main residential collector road coming
in off of Ustick out the south end heading north. So, this is on the east side of the
residential collector, what would be phase 14 of their project. The street system that
was approved, you can see, is just a loop here. It does have a stub to Watersong
Estates Subdivision. That local road system is not proposed to change. Here is the plat
that they are proposing. So, you can see the small cul-de-sac on the end, which is also
the same, as well as the stub street. The reason that they are submitting this as a new
preliminary plat is because the total number of lots within this has increased by 11 from
what they originally had. If you add up the entire Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision,
they are still, I believe, nine lots below what they were originally approved for. So, as
they have built the subdivision out, you know, as the market and whatnot has changed
and the open space lots are needed for drainage, et cetera, they have adjusted lots and
so in a sense they are kind of making up with this phase some of the lots that they had
lost in other phases. So, because of the increase in the number of lots they were asked
by staff to file a brand new preliminary plat. Of course, the property is already annexed
and zoned. The Conditional Use Permit does not change, so those two existing
applications remain in effect and underly this conditional use -- or this preliminary plat.
So, we are just dealing with the one application tonight. The Coleman Lateral does run
across the southern boundary of this phase. The only point I think of consideration in
the staff report that's worthy of noting is on page five -- the bottom of page five and the
top of page six regarding open space and the main open space in this phase is here off
of the residential collector. There is a very interesting archeological site here in that
there is a small cemetery, which we don't see too often, that is in this location, which
during the original preliminary plat of this area when the developer brought this through,
we had asked, of course, that they sort of set that into it's own common lot with some
landscaping around it. They are showing it here preserved. They have -- because of
groundwater issues, as was earlier discussed tonight in this area, they have shown all
sand -- I'm sorry, I guess that's the only one we have. Mostly a sand bottom around the
cemetery and that's actually part of an agreement that the city made with the developer
a couple of years ago, because of all of the dead sod that was happening with all the
ground -- the high groundwater and the dying, so they are required to keep that free of
weeds and raked and kept very neat. The applicant told me tonight they actually may
not need that, because of the change in the agricultural use. As they monitor out there,
if the groundwater changes, maybe get some vegetative groundcover, which I think
would be everyone's preference. They have shown sand there now and since that is
part of an existing agreement, even though that's not our preference, I think because of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 71 of 85
what they are having to deal with on the ground, that's what is currently shown. So, just
you know, if you recommend approval of this, it is going with that sand area in that
cemetery site. All that to say because it is shown in sand in Josh's staff report, which,
by the way, I am substituting for Josh on this application, he felt that that should not
qualify as open space and that the applicant should provide some either active or
passive open space elsewhere. Today we asked the applicant to calculate the square
footage of the parkway. They are proposing an eight foot wide parkway, detached
sidewalk, around this looped road, so the way that the Unified Development Code is
written, if they do provide the eight feet and they subtract out the driveway curb cuts
across that, which we have said should be 26 feet, and they subtract that out, then, they
can actually count that as open space and it sounds like they are around an acre, if you
add up all of that open space. So, it would actually offset by more than what's
necessary. So, I think Josh did not have that information when he wrote the staff report,
so that affects the -- the one site-specific condition that is really of any substance in the
report.
Moe: 1.22?
Hawkins-Clark: Sorry?
Moe: Is that 1.22?
Hawkins-Clark: 1.12, which states the applicant shall provide additional usable open
space, common lots. So, if the Commission is comfortable counting the parkway as
that, which the UDC supports, then, that could be stricken. So, that's all staff has on
this application.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Maybe one along that same -- I never felt too strongly about counting those
parkways that it really means a lot as far as open space, but the question I have -- and I
realize this is -- we need to look at this, I assume on its own, but what's the open space
for the entire project? Maybe we can get that from the application when they come up,
but --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I would have to defer to the applicant.
Borup: Okay. But I -- if that's -- by the time this thing is averaged in on the entire
project, if it doesn't really have any effect -- I think it makes sense, then.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the -- I think it's just -- up until
a couple weeks ago I think -- maybe the new director has -- or not the new director, the
director has changed and set a new policy there, but previously we had said that if it's a
new preliminary plat, it's a new application, and it should be reviewed as a stand-alone
application and that's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 72 of 85
Borup: But it was part of an original --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. And their response -- the written response does state that 56
acres of open space, plus the 13-acre elementary school site, within the entire
Bridgetower site.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: I can't tell you what the percentage is.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: I would only comment on the session that happened during the Process
Improvement Group meetings that was helping to develop the new Unified Development
Code, in regard to counting the space between a roadway and the sidewalk as open
space, was to help developers be encouraged to use the detached sidewalk as being
much more pedestrian friendly. It was kind of a -- really, an incentive -- intended as an
incentive to encourage them to do detached sidewalks and --
Borup: Well, I think the esthetics are worth it, but that's more what it is, the esthetics.
Zaremba: Yeah. So, that was the thinking about why it's given -- allowed to be in the
open space calculation. Okay. If there are no further comments, the applicant, please.
McKay: I will be really quick on this one. I promise. Becky McKay, Engineering
Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. As Brad indicated, we are coming back
to you for a new preliminary plat on one particular pod within the Bridgetower project.
The pod you're looking at is -- the area we are asking for a replat is this area right here.
And this is phase 14, which is our last phase to be designed. So, all the collectors are
in, the landscaping here along the collectors is in, with the exception of the cemetery.
And, no, that's not my amenity. It was an old cemetery from like the 1800s. There is, I
believe, six graves still left there. There is just a small area with a little wrought iron
fence. We promised the City Council that we would tastefully buffer that, landscape it,
and maintain that area. So, even though the little fence area is just a tiny spot in the
middle of that, we did allow for quite a bit of area around it. Since we did this also, we
came up with the swale concept, so we are not putting the storm drainage around this
exterior like we had planned. There will be some that already goes there via the
collector that was pre-planned. We want -- when Brad talked about a sand bottom, it's
just the very very bottom and the staff goes out and they work with the landscape
architect to make sure that that sand is kind of contoured and that landscaping is put
like they put some shrubs and rocks as kind of a vision to draw your attention to the
sides versus the bottom of the sand and you really -- when you go down the collector
don't really even notice the sand. When it gets the sediment on it, the silt from the road,
they go and they rake it and it looks just as good as new. Like I said, we tried the
cobblestone and that just did not work. So we have learned a lot. Open space. I think
in my comments to you guys we had 56 acres of open space in the original Bridgetower
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 73 of 85
project. We dropped a considerable amount of lots as time went on to enlarge lots and
to increase our storm drainage retention areas, So, we have a lot -- at the time I think
we had about 15 percent open space in the project in its entirety and, then, we added
more open space and we did not count the elementary school site as part of the 56. It
was independent of that. We have two pool houses -- two pools, two clubhouses. The
second pool and second clubhouse are under construction. We have multi-use
pathways, waterfalls, ponds, seven-acre park, lots of pathways and so forth. So, we
have already put in all of the amenities. This is just one little pod that we are re-platting
and the reason being -- when we originally laid this out, these were some of our larger
lots. We had phase 13,6,14 were the bigger lots. These lots are 145 by like 84 and 90
feet wide. The first design was identical to this in the roadway network. The lots were
just like 15,000, 14,000 square feet, all the way up to -- I think we had some that went
as high as 20. In adding these 11 lots, these are still 13,000, 12,000, 18, 16,000.
These are 13 and 11 thousand through here. So, they are still huge. They are 140
deep, 159 deep. We try to keep everything around the 80s wide. I don't think we had
anything less than about an 80. So, they are still very large lots. And the reason we
decided to do this is the escalation in the lot prices. My client said as large as these lots
are on paper, I'm going to have to ask, in order to make this work, a couple hundred
thousand dollars per each lot and, you know, I don't want to go there and so he felt from
a marketing perspective, by reducing these lots by a couple thousand -- two or three
thousand square feet, they are still real large compared to, you know, north Meridian
standards, it made for a better project. And we are still under the number of lots that
were approved under the original PUD by nine, as staff said. So, if you look at my
comments, I just ask that you accept the fact that the amenities were provided in the
original Bridgetower, that we allow for some sand in the bottom, as we have agreed to
with staff, Public Works, ACHD, and, then, that no red curb did show up on this one that
is solely a residential subdivision. It says locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb
painted red ten feet to each side of hydrant location. So -- now, I saw this pop up once
before on an application. The Council did ask Kenny Bowers, who was the fire chief at
the time, if that was an error, and he said that he did not believe it was applicable to
residential. So, they took -- the Council took it off on my last application where it's -- I
don't know why it's resurfacing again. We do reflectors in front of those hydrants.
That's a Public Works requirement, so that they can be easily seen in the dark. But the
red we don't do, not in residential. Now, my client said he saw one residential
subdivision where I guess they did not object and just did it and he said it looked awful.
So, there is one in Meridian that has it. Other than that, I think the staff and ourselves
were pretty much in agreement. And, then, we ask that the fencing for this one be able
to match everything else. I don't want to deviate from the -- what we have already got
out there, because this is, like I said, my last phase to be designed. Do you have any
questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: No questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 74 of 85
Borup: Just a comment. You seemed concerned about the open space, but I think
Brad had mentioned that counting -- the drainage area should comply, so that--
McKay: You mean the green space, the eight foot green space?
Borup: Right. Right.
McKay: Yeah. It's 1.04.
Borup: So, you're okay without worrying about --
McKay: Okay.
Borup: -- counting everything else, it looks like.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: There is no one signed up to speak, although, again, the opportunity is
available if somebody feels compelled. Okay. I see no action from the audience, so,
Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I think the request on the fence is reasonable, so the subdivision
looks like the rest of it. Other than that, I have no concerns.
Zaremba: We would be happy to have you make a motion. Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm was making notes to make a motion.
Zaremba: Well, the first one is easy.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-044.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would ask --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 75 of 85
Moe: I would ask staff in regards to that applicant's comments, what does staff -- are
we in agreement to delete some of these or what are we doing with these?
Cole: Commissioner Moe, I can't speak for planning on theirs. The only concern the
applicant had on Public Works comments was on 2.5, about vacating a lateral for the
easement. She thinks it's a proscriptive easement, so I believe if we just add the word
vacating a recorded irrigation easement would -- we could get an agreement with that,
much as the last --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, as far as the planning
comments on this project, 1.2.2 references the need to reserve the use of sand for the
ponds and given that they do have a signed agreement with the city, we accept that
point. Again, I think it's -- for consistency sake on the fire department, I think you noted
in your last decision the residential and the red curbs, so it would seem appropriate to
grant that same privilege on this project. And we would agree, I think there is a
difference on the Volterra Subdivision being a new project entirely on the fencing, as
compared to this one where they are finishing up a 14-phase project. So, we are in
agreement there. The 4.2 on the police -- the condition actually reads: The proposed
development does not offer natural surveillance opportunities at the public areas and
that they should revise the landscape plan in accordance with discussions that would
occur with the police department. I gather from the applicant's testimony they didn't
actually -- she didn't contact the police department, which probably have been done,
since that's what the condition asked to do, but, you know, I mean --
Borup: What public areas --
Hawkins-Clark: -- given that the open area is already exposed -- yeah, I -- I can only
guess that maybe he's talking about the micro-paths on that. But, you know, that would
be my only guess. But that micro-path is straight alignment, which is something that we
-- we want them to be straight, not crooked, and it complies with that. And that other
open space area is substantially open to Belltower Lane, the collector. So, I'd be
comfortable with you I guess, essentially, adopting all the changes that are proposed in
the applicant's letter. Rather than going through them individually, since we are in
agreement with all of them, with the exception of Mike Cole's statement about 2.5, just
kind of -- rather than deleting that, just changing the wording, I think, we are good with
that change.
Borup: So, is that the consensus of the Commission, everything but 2.5 would be
incorporated?
Moe: I agree.
Zaremba: Works for me.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you going to do this or do you want me to? I'm ready I guess
now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 76 of 85
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I move we recommend approval to the City Council --
Borup: Did we close the hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Of PP 05-044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of October 6, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated August 10th, 2005, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval: We will incorporate the letter from
the applicant, with agreement of all statements, with the exception of the statement
referring to Item No. 2.5 from the Public Works and we will change the words from
vacate the existing to vacate recorded, Coleman Lateral easement. Oh. And
applicant's letter was received on October 6th, 2005. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: MCU 05-002 Request for modification of approved CUP
03-067 to allow for the operation of a 2,200 square foot convenience store
and to eliminate the coffee stand for Cedar Springs Professional Center
by Robert Montgomery - northeast corner of Venable Lane and Ustick
Road:
Zaremba: Thank you all. We are now ready to open the Public Hearing for MCU 05-
002, regarding Cedar Springs Professional Center and, once again, we will begin with
the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission. This is, I believe,
the first Conditional Use Permit application that this Commission has reviewed under
the new UDC and under the new UDC you have final authority on these applications.
So, your decision tonight would be final, unless appealed by an affected property owner
or someone else. So, in that case, the motion does need to be a little different in that
you need to request that the staff prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that
reflect your decision tonight and, then, we would bring those Findings back to you for
your review and, then, eventual adoption. This application is a modification to an
existing Conditional Use Permit. The development agreement that was entered into on
this property a couple of years ago was also proposed to be modified a couple of
months ago. This body, of course, does not see modifications to development
agreements, since those are contracts, they go directly to the City Council. City Council
did hear that modification to the development agreement, which has the exact same
proposed changes that you're reviewing tonight, the City Council reviewed under the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 77 of 85
development agreement. They got separated and that was, essentially, my fault.
During the time that we reviewed this with the applicant I failed to point out that they
really needed to amend both the development agreement and the Conditional Use
Permit. So, that's the reason they got split. The City Council was not comfortable
when they reviewed the development agreement a couple of months ago with that as a
final decision. They felt that since the same conditions were in the Conditional Use
Permit, that the Conditional Use Permit also needed to be amended and that is
consistent with previous actions. So, that's why you're reviewing this and as I stated,
the -- excuse me -- the site is one you're probably familiar with, so I won't go too much
into that. The neighborhood center is in this location. The site was approved as Cedar
Springs Professional Center. It is zoned C-N, Neighborhood Commercial, even though
the slide that's on the screen does not show that correctly. It is -- it was rezoned to a C-
N zone. This slide shows the plat that was approved, which has the center area where
they had a -- originally they had a coffee kiosk in this corner, they had a car wash and
some fuel pumps, vacuums, and, then, office lots around the north and the east. This is
a private commercial driveway, it functions more like a private road, really, but that is
constructed. Much of the infrastructure, I believe, is already done and foundations and
building activity are underway on the office lots. This application actually only
addresses this lot number one. This is the elevation of the -- of the structure on that lot
one. They are really not proposing any change significantly to the style. The main
modification is going to be on the south end of the building. And, let's see, I apologize, I
guess we don't have -- we can put that on the overhead here, but there is a site plan
that you should have in the application which reflects the approved design here.
Zaremba: We have got it.
Hawkins-Clark: You have it? Okay. So, what they are proposing to do is to convert the
-- one of those -- what was a car wash bay on the south end of the project to -- of the
building, into a convenience store. So, they are proposing to get a use approval for a
convenience store in this location. They are also proposing a change to the hours of
operation. Originally, they were asking for 24 hours -- 24 hours, the City Council in their
meeting with the development agreement did not approve the 24-hour -- it was 6:00 to
9:00 was it?
Borup: Eleven.
Hawins-Clark: 6:00 to 11 :00. I'm sorry. 6:00 to 11 :00. So, In terms of consistency,
obviously, that would probably make sense to retain that. I think that's really the main
comments staff has at this time. I'll go ahead and place the detail site plan on the
screen while the applicant is giving their presentation.
Zaremba: You mentioned that the convenience store part of it is going to remove one of
the drive-thru wash -- car wash or truck washing bays, probably, was going to be big
enough to do that, but in the old scenario there would have been no landscaping around
that portion of the structure. Is there any need to have landscaping around the new
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 78 of 85
revised building? It may end up just being pavement up to the edge of the building or
do we care?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is not an area of
site plans that the ordinance addresses. The ordinance does require, of course, street
buffer landscaping, it requires buffers between land uses and it does require planters at
the end of parking aisles. But the ordinance does not actually require landscaping
around the building. Now, I would agree with you that it would be probably preferable
and certainly from a design perspective we'd like to see the facades of buildings
improved. And I guess I'll let the applicant address that. I think it would -- it would
certainly make -- for the pedestrians approaching the building it would be an
improvement.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: I would agree.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. We are ready for the
applicant, then.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Daren
Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood, in Boise. I intend to be brief and since I
know what brief is to Becky, I think I can do better than that. I want to stress a couple
things for you on this and the first and most important is that this is located within a
neighborhood commercial center and designated by the Comprehensive Plan. We think
this is a real improvement to this site plan from what was originally approved, because it
actually provides services to people who live in the neighborhood, honestly, more so
than the car wash does. The car wash is a commercial use that can be used by people
in the neighborhood and will be used by people in the neighborhood. But this is
something that is really lacking in this area. You know, if people want a can of soup or
a carton of milk, they have to get in their car to go and get it now. This will allow people
to walk to the store and get that. This is a use that will serve the people in the area. It
will serve cars that are driving by, but it will not be a trip generator in the classic sense
of a retail commercial use. It will capture trips that are already on the roadway and it will
serve people in the area. In that sense it's a real improvement. I also want to stress for
you what a great design this is. I think the architect has done a fabulous job with this
building. I think this is probably the nicest car wash you will ever see that and the
convenience store has been incorporated into the building in such a way that it's just a
real seamless transition, it works really well, and it is a really nice looking building. With
regard to this issue of landscaping on south, the landscaping has all been installed for
the site. There is really nowhere else to put it. The building has not gotten any larger
and so there is no more need for landscaping on that there now than there was when
the project was approved originally. Basically, we substituted one bay of the car wash
for the store. I don't -- you know, there is not really a lot more to say about this. The
project did change ownership after it was originally approved, which is why we come
back -- why we are not coming back. The new owner just desires to have a little bit
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 79 of 85
more diversity of use on the site than the previous owner did and so here we are. We
have, you know, through a bit of a procedural snafu we got to the City Council first with
the DA modification and now we are here talking to you about the conditional use, so it's
a little bit backwards. But, you know, it's a nice looking project and it fits well for the
neighborhood. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan and will be a real positive
addition to this area. So, if you have any questions, I would be happy to take those.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I'll have to admit that I remember when this
project came through the Planning and Zoning Commission before, and my recollection
was that it already included a convenience store, so I'm in favor of it. I thought it was
already there.
Borup: And that was one of my concerns is it really wasn't having any neighborhood set
of services before. A car wash is pretty limited.
Zaremba: Maybe I just wanted it to be there--
Borup: Yeah. It was logical.
Zaremba: -- is maybe what I'm remembering. But, anyhow, I certainly don't have a
problem with it. Great. Thank you. We do have somebody signed up to speak. Joe
Simunich.
Simunich: Joe Simunich and I reside at 975 West Ustick Road, across the street from
where this Maverick is going to be going in. Now, at the meeting when this property
was zoned for these L-O-D's and businesses, it was stated how little traffic we would
have coming in and out of this business, just a car wash and a self lock gas station and
some office buildings. Now, we are going to have a full-fledged convenient store, which
you all know they draw quite a bit of traffic, especially with the gas station there. I have
got no problems with the convenience store, but I do have a problem with the widening
of Ustick Road. Meridian city is widening Ustick Road by the park east of this place.
East of his place there is a ten lot subdivision that has widened Ustick Road. This
particular area has no widening at all. The curb from Venable Lane comes right out to
the existing edge of old oil. Also, on their other approach it's the same thing, they have
got a cross drain right at the edge of the oil. Now, they are going to have tank trucks in
there, a considerably amount of traffic, I'm just wondering if there is any way we can get
some widening effort or acceleration or turn lanes.
Zaremba: On Ustick you mean?
Simunich: On Ustick, yes. Every subdivision that goes in has some widening, at least
for acceleration or turning in and here we have a commercial establishment that draws
the public and the road is not widened at all from the hold farm road that was there,
that's all there is there now. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 80 of 85
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Let's see. Maybe staff knows more than I do. I think there is
a plan to widening Ustick. I know at some day it's going to be five lanes. I don't know
how soon that's going to be, but --
Borup: Well, I think Mr. Simunich's comment is right now with increased traffic in and
out, maybe there needs to be at least a temporary --
Zaremba: When it came before us, the applicant, at that time, showed for us how the
longer, double trailer gasoline trucks would work their way through, at least internally, as
we talked about where the islands and separators and driveways would be. We didn't
talk about Ustick road, I don't think, but --
Borup: I don't think so either.
Zaremba: I don't know how soon -- there is a plan to widening it eventually, but, yeah,
the question is how soon.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm just reading through
Ada County Highway District report on this site. They do state that Cedar Springs
Subdivision was required to construct a left turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and
Venable, which I believe Mr. Simunich's concern was more about maybe the
deceleration lane westbound -- correct. But the condition states that there needs to be
a turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and Venable.
Borup: This is the present -- or this is the previous one? The original ACHD report?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It was reviewed for this meeting, but as they often do, if they
have already reviewed this site for the previously application, they just attached the old
report and they put a cover page on it that says this is for review. So, maybe the
applicant could address how they are addressing ACHD's condition.
Zaremba: Before we have the applicant come back, Mr. Simunich was the only one
signed up, but if anybody else cares to speak. I see no action. Okay. Mr. Fluke.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers. We
did dedicate the additional right of way along Ustick Road at the time the subdivision
was platted. We did build the sidewalk in it ultimately, do that when the road is widened
it will match up. I'm not aware of when Ustick Road is scheduled to be widened. As far
as I know, it's not in the five year plan at this time, alii can say to the -- you know, as far
as that goes, is that all the impact fees that are generated by this project, including the
residential project, all of those funds do go into the kitty for road improvements in the
area. So, I can't tell you when, but I can tell you that we have already dedicated the
right of way for an ultimate 96 foot right of way there, 48 feet from center line.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 81 of 85
Moe: While you're there, one question. As far as the gas station itself, that will still be a
card lock type gas system?
Fluke: That's correct.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Daren?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: You mentioned you dedicated the right of way and that's what I think we all
understood, but I don't think that addresses the problem of the traffic turning into this
project. I mean, hopefully, for the owner's sake, there is going to be a lot of cars turning
in and that has got to be the worst intersection in Meridian at -- from 5:00 to 6:00
o'clock, I think. Not so bad going west, maybe, but --
Fluke: Venable and Ustick or --
Borup: No. Meridian and Ustick.
Fluke: Okay.
Borup: Yeah. Not Venable, but down the street. So, I mean with -- with what should be
increased traffic there, my concern would be backing up down Ustick when cars are just
accelerating out of that intersection and, then, I don't know, maybe it's not going to be
that much, but -- so there has not been any consideration about a turn lane at all?
Fluke: Well, I can just tell you that the requirements on Ustick were not required of us,
being that it's -- well, it's at least a collector, perhaps it's an arterial. I don't know that off
the top of my head. But because of the status of the road, is it the responsibility of the
highway district to make the improvements. We were not required to add additional
pavement to the road, so -- I honestly don't remember --
Borup: Well, I'm not sure if a lot of projects are required, but they do it anyway. I don't
know. Is that a concern from any of the other Commissioners? I mean, obviously, it's
going to depend on how much traffic is in there and there may not be a problem. We
don't know.
Zaremba: It is a concern to me. I believe the answer is in the works. The biggest
question is how far away is the answer. It's going to be fixed. I mean it's going to be
five lane at some point.
Borup: Right. But I'm just thinking -- I mean it's not a commercial project, but down the
street at Sundance they did a small turn lane. I mean it was only -- I don't know. It
wasn't much more than a hundred feet, I don't think. Maybe it wasn't even that big.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6. 2005
Page 82 of 85
Zaremba: Well, are you talking about dedicating additional right of way for a separate
turn lane or --
Borup: No. No. Just--
Zaremba: -- putting it within the right of way that's already dedicated?
Borup: Right. Yeah.
Fluke: I was hoping we had an aerial photograph, but don't we. I guess the point I'd
make is that the real estate is there. I mean it's usable now, it's graveled essentially as
a shoulder. The room is there for them to turn, it's just simply not paved and I know that
it will be paved at some point, but at this point at least the geometry is there, you know,
the space is there for people to utilize that and I assume that they will.
Borup: The space is there, but is it prep'd that it can take the traffic?
Fluke: Well, it's graveled currently.
Borup: New gravel was added or just existing that was there?
Fluke: Yeah. We did add gravel to that side from the sidewalk to the edge of the
existing pavement.
Borup: How far -- how far east of the entrance?
Fluke: Well, it would have been along the entire Ustick Road frontage where we
dedicated the additional right of way. The sidewalk sits within those skinny lots that you
see there through landscaping lots as well.
Zaremba: Well, I'm inclined to accept your earlier statement that this was not
necessarily going to be a traffic generator. It's not a real destination, but it will be an
extra stop for traffic that would already be there. If I understood what you said -- and I
think I agree with what I understood -- this isn't really going to add any traffic, it's just
going to make one stop for traffic that would come passed there anyhow.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I disagree with that and this is where I have a fundamental
problem with these neighborhood center mid mile concepts, but this will be the only
convenience -- in north Meridian right now you either go south to Maverick at Cherry
Lane or to Albertson's at Ten Mile.
Borup: This is the first thing north of Fairview I think.
Newton-Huckabay: It is. It's the first thing north of Fairview and I know for me this -- I
mean J drive by, well, when Ustlck was open -- this development every day and it will be the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 83 of 85
direction I will go, which is about a half a mile from our house, most likely. But I mean I
think -- I think just by the sheer fact of -- there is not going to be a lot of competition in
that area, that it's going to generate traffic, until you see some more commercial
developments on other corners and, you know, north of Fairview. Personally. But do
we even have the authority to say pave the side of the roadway?
Zaremba: I don't think we do, but -- it's ACHD jurisdiction.
Newton-Huckabay: Then I don't think we can have that conversation, then. I mean I
think we can encourage it, but we can't -- if we can't say do it, then, I think we should
just move on.
Zaremba: The only thing we can do is encourage ACHD to move up their timeline, but
we are asking for that allover the city.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well -- and I think that's --
Zaremba: The whole city is a priority.
Newton-Huckabay: But I think a convenience store in this area meets definitely a need.
But if we can't require it, then, I don't think that we need to -- I don't think we can --
Zaremba: I would say it's not our jurisdiction, even though we can have an opinion
about it.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Of course, we can ask.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, I would just point out that I will follow up with
ACHD. Like I said, reading from their staff report, which states that they require Cedar
Springs Subdivision to construct a turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and Venable.
What we heard tonight --
Borup: A turn lane running from which -- off of Ustick?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it's on Ustick.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: But as we heard tonight, it's not been done and I don't know if that's an
oversight or how the enforcement is happening at ACHD, but at a minimum the City of
Meridian staff can call ACHD staff and get a clarification on that and we can follow that
up. But I just point that out, that it was anticipated with the original subdivision that that
intersection needed some capacity improvements and typically they do a hundred foot
stacking turn lane, you know, with the appropriate tapers.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 84 of 85
Rohm: That wouldn't be part of this application, that would just be enforcement of an
existing approved; correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: That would take care of it, then.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Chair, do we then --
Zaremba: Our motion would be to approve or deny. It's not a recommendation.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But with the -- I mean -- I guess it's irrelevant of that. It's an
independent issue. Okay. Yeah.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on MCU 05-002.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: And you are remembering to add the piece to ask staff to prepare Facts and
Findings.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move to approve MCU 05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of October 6, 2005, and the site plan dated August of 2005 and direct staff to
produce Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this application. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 85 of 85
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Commissioner Mae.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
\\\:t.1 h: f 11Iil
\\\' 7: 11111/
'A - CHAlRNlA'W~ 1,,). ~;,~
*~'~ ,.., {.:
$ v ."'-{'j~';P"~1}).., ~
~ "v <"0 ~
& ! -
~.", -
; ~ :::~~i~;~_:_, f:" r . '~:.. r
~ it ~."" or' ~ _ -
~.. \.. AITEST-BD:::: -
.. ., l'c, (')'. 1 .
\-~ \"G'tro <;:':/0 ~LLlAM G. BERG JR., CIT
~ '?)~qr lS1 ./ .:{~ .::-
~ <-r~ "__,.rr-.--/" ,__,._.~,'\;:'~ ,--"~
Plr..,.: -.,;J ,"~"~
rl'{ . ,.,"
fllll \\....,
Jltu It Ipn\'
I \ I 3 I 05
DATE APPROVED
DAVID
~~L