2006 06-15
Meridian PlanninQ and ZoninQ MeetinQ
June 15.2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 15, 2006, was called
to order at 7:03 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba and David Moe.
Members Absent: Michael Rohm and Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Craig Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch,
Justin Lucas and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X
Michael Rohm - Chairman
Keith Boru p
David Zaremba
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 15th,
2006. I'd like to go ahead and call roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: At this time the next item would be the adoption of the agenda. What I would like
to do prior to that -- there are a few hearings tonight, folks, that will be continued. Those
hearings will be Item No.4, which is the continued Public Hearing for CUP 06-015 for a
Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Gateway Walgreens. The applicant is out of town
and had requested to be continued. At this time we are probably anticipating that will
happen on the July the 6th meeting. The next hearing that would also be continued is
Item No.5, which is Public Hearing RZ 06-005, which is a rezone for Meridian
Professional Office. Items No. 10 and 11, RZ 06-026 and PP 06-025, both for
Paramount South Six Subdivision -- Paramount, as well as Meridian Professional Office,
did not post properly, so those also will be moved to our July 6th hearing date. What I
would like to do is put those after adoption of the agenda and, then, I would like to
continue those at that time. Having said that, have a motion to adopt the agenda.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the revised agenda.
Moe: Okay. It has been -- motion to approve --
Borup: Second.
Moe: And a second. Excuse me. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed
same sign? Therefore, it has been approved.
Me.ridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 2 of 39
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Therefore, I would like to continue Public Hearing CUP 06-015, a Conditional Use
Permit for Meridian Gateway Walgreens. Item RZ 06-005, the Meridian Professional
Office --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Prior to that we should deal with the Consent Agenda.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 4,2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-016 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on
0.37 acres in an L-O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin
and Katie Fish - 3665 North Locust Grove Road:
Moe: Okay. In that case, then, may I have a motion to -- we will hold off on the
continuance and may I have a motion to accept the Consent Agenda or are there
comments before we make that motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the Consent Agenda as is.
Moe: Second?
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been -- motion and accepted -- and a second. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed same sign? Hearing none, that passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Next item I would now like to continue the hearings --
Me,ridian Planning & Zoning
June 15. 2006
Page 3 of 39
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Baird: If I could make a suggestion. To keep the records clean on these, lid suggest
that you open each individually and entertain a motion solely for the purposes of
continuing, one motion per -- one at a time.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development
Agreement for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens by White-Leasure
Development - 1601 S. Meridian Road:
Moe: I will do that, then. Therefore, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing on
CUP 06-015 for the sole purpose to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the
P&Z Commission on July 6th, 2006.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been -- motion and seconded. All those signify -- all those in favor signify
by saying aye. Opposed? That has passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I assume the agenda can accommodate these extra meetings?
Item 5:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-
4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by
John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road:
Moe: Yes. We did review the agenda and it will be open. Next item would be a request
to continue the Public Hearing RZ 06-005, request for a rezone of 1.004 acres for
Meridian Professional Office.
Borup: So moved.
Moe: To the date of July 6th.
Borup: July 6th.
Moe: 2006.
Zaremba: Second accepts the July 6th motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 4 of 39
Moe: All right. It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed? That motion is passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by
Paramount Development - northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W.
McMillan Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201
residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development
- northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road:
Moe: Next item would be to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-026, request for
annexation and zoning -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I have to open that hearing for AZ 06-026,
as well as PP 06-025, for the annexation and zoning for Paramount South Six
Subdivision, as well as the preliminary plat approval for Paramount South Six
Subdivision.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue Items AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025 to our
regularly scheduled meeting of July 6, 2006.
Moe: Is there a second?
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move Public Hearing AZ 06-026 and PP 06-
025 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 6th, 2006. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed same sign. That has passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Having said that, before we get to the next Public Hearing, I would like to just kind
of walk through a little bit of the Public Hearing process for some that have not been
here before. We will open the Public Hearing on the next item. Staff will give its report,
basically, an overview of the project, at which time, then, we will ask the applicant to
come up and speak to the project. After the applicant has gone through that, we will,
then -- there is sign-up sheets back there if you haven't signed up and you may sign up
to speak. You will have three minutes for any rebuttal on that -- or to discuss what the
applicant had said. After all public testimony, at that time the applicant will, then, have
time to come up and rebut what the others had said. Other than that, then, at that point
the Commission will, then, make determination on where we go from there. That's the
short version of that and I want go ahead and go forward now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15. 2006
Page 5 of 39
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs
Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29
residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and
south of Zeldia Lane:
Moe: So, having said that, I would like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-024, request
for annexation and zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Napoli Subdivision
by Briggs Engineering, as well as PP 06-023, request for preliminary plat approval for
29 residential lots and three common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Napoli Subdivision. At this time the staff report.
Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen. This
is for Napoli Subdivision. It is a request for both annexation and preliminary plat. The
annexation would be from rural to R-4 zone and on the 10.17 acres for the zoning, you
can see -- let's see here. Sorry. That little blue line right there is where we are looking.
In addition, the preliminary plat is 9.44 acres, with 29 residential lots and three common
lots. We have Eagle Road here. Amity down below. As far as development in the
area, there is the Kingsbridge Subdivision up here. The Zaldia Subdivision which will go
in here. The Martinelle Subdivision down here. This is an unplatted area down here.
And, then, Messina Meadows Subdivision is here. It's a mix of both rural and low to
medium residential. This particular subdivision Napoli, with the R-4, is towards the
lower end of that. I think it provides a good amount of transition from the Kingsbridge to
the more densely populated Messina over here. As far as -- let's see. Here we have a
gross density of 3.7 dwellings per acre, with approximately 9,493 square feet average
per lot. As far as our land here, they are going to be proposing several streets. They
will be taking the Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private lane, and turning it into a
public street, as well they will be building the Tendaris, South Palatino Avenue, which
will be stubbing down here to the Martinelle Subdivision. And let me see if there is a
Martino Avenue. I need my glasses. Staff recommends approval of this. There are,
really, not a lot of issues regarding the design. There will be no parking on Zaldia Lane
due to width of it on one side. Excuse me. The east Zaldia. There is East Zaldia Drive
and, then, Zaldia Lane and it's the lane that will not have the parking on it. East Zaldia.
And I believe I can stand for questions if you have specific questions.
Moe: Any questions?
Borup: Not at this time.
Veatch: We do have some elevations as well. I guess we can go to the landscape and,
then, most of the open space provided for the subdivision is with the parkways here.
And, then, Caleb's going to get the elevations here for us as well. Oh, it will take just a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 6 of 39
minute to open up the -- the open space does equal 10.61 percent, which is well above
the recommended five percent.
Moe: In regard to that open space, that is, basically, within the parkway areas; is that
correct?
Veatch: That's correct.
Moe: So, there is no set aside lot and whatnot for any open space, it is within the
parkways?
Veatch: Correct.
Moe: Okay.
Veatch: So, we have four different elevations provided here that will be seen
throughout the subdivision. Some single story, I believe, and, then, also two story. ['II
be letting Mr. Harris speak more to that. Single story homes will be approximately 1,600
square feet minimum and two story will be a minimum of 2,200 square feet.
Moe: Okay. Any questions of the Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chair, one of those elevations shows no garages and [ -- it didn't stick in
my mind that there were any alley-loaded projects and I'm wondering -- go to the next
slide. The top one. I'm just questioning whether that's a valid elevation or not.
Moe: We can have the applicant address that when he comes up.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions?
Zaremba: No. Thank you.
Moe: Having none, would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Harris: Good evening. Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road.
First off, I'd like to say Jenny covered everything pretty well, except for the density in
this subdivision is 3.07, not 3.7. The average lot size is 9,493 square feet. And on
those elevations, if Caleb could flip back, the one you were talking about there is,
actually, a side entry garage, I believe, and these are just examples of what is going to
be similar into the subdivision, not the exact same houses. He just took photographs of
what they plan on putting in the subdivision. And with that, the subdivision is pretty
straight forward. I'd stand for any questions if you have any of me.
Moe: Commissioners?
MElridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 7 of 39
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harris, from reading through the letters that we have
received I know there is going to be a question about the process of converting -- this is
Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private road, into a public road and I guess my
question is do you know the process of taking a road with upstream users who
apparently own it and maintain it and converting it to a public road? That's probably an
ACHD issue, but I'm sure it will come up.
Harris: Yeah. Commissioner Zaremba we talked to ACHD about that and ACHD has
no problems with it. They are, actually, very excited about changing that into a public
road and wish that we had done that prior to Kingsbridge going in, they would have liked
to stub there. With -- I guess access upstream or downstream, however you want to
look at it, from my understanding as long as we provide them with the same access
point and the same access as they have before, there is not an issue, just through this
property. It's going to be public. From the end of this property on it's still going to be
private and maintained by those homeowners. Further than that, I don't know any of the
legality issues of that. I think ACHD thought it was perfectly fine.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Harris: Thank you.
Moe: At this time we do have quite a few folks on here.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Baird: Over here. Before we begin, it might be appropriate to inquire if there is a
spokesman for the group that might want to speak on behalf of others.
Moe: Very good point. Yes. That would be -- if, in fact, within you folks as you have
signed up, if you do have a spokesperson for your group that would like go ahead and
at that point if you have a spokesperson, they would have ten minutes to speak, as
opposed to if you come up individually you will have three minutes and we do have a
lighting system that will take care of that three minutes, so you will know when it's up
and we would like to keep that as close to that three minute period. So, if you do have a
spokesperson, that you have -- raise your hand if you have one and we will just go from
there. So, does anyone have a spokesperson? Seeing none, then, we will go through
the list. The first person on the list is Bradford -- and, I'm sorry, I can't read -- please
come forward.
Deadman: Hello, folks. My name is Bradford Deadman, I reside at 3644 East Zaldia
Lane, with my wife and daughter. I'll indicate with the pointer where that is. I hope. On
Me.rldian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 8 of 39
this five acre spread here. Pardon me, I can't hold this steady. Mike nervousness.
Okay. And, of course, I live next to my other neighbor. Five acres. Next to his
neighbor. Five acres. We have had this discussion last year. Here is another neighbor
with, again, five acres. Of course this proposal here comprises approximately nine
acres with 30 homes. Here is another five acres, five acres, et cetera. Anyway, we
have all met with a lot of curiosity about the way that this is being proposed. Primarily
density. Folks from last year will remember that we had an extensive relationship with
Kingsbridge and the developers of it to make sure that we developed an area here,
subdivision, with lots of transitional density, both in regard to just simple lot size and
home size, but also, more importantly, some visual transition, going from the space and
distance between those homes, allowing their to be limitations regarding home height,
so that there would be a harmonious transition between the homes that are being built
and all the homes existing, so that everybody retains a view that they all paid for. A lot
of our concerns go for just the massive wall of homes that will be generated here as the
density proposed, according to the numbers that I see anyway, appear to be greater
dense than anything else around it. Of course, I have interest in my neighbor as well,
who will -- unlike me, I will experience sunset approximately 9:30 this month, but in two
years my neighbor right down here will probably experience his summer sunset right
around 7:45 if there is a wall of two story homes along the perimeter of his home, so, of
course, I'm curious about that. I'm very curious about the safety resulting in influx of all
these cars onto Zaldia Lane and, frankly, a little bit amazed that it has made it to
discussion with ACHD without having discussion with you. Regarding whether the
subdivision can, indeed, exit all of these vehicles strictly on Zaldia with not -- with no
access to Eagle, which is right here. I'm quite surprised. I'm very worried. I'm
concerned of safety. That's, really, the main gist of is rIm concerned about the lot
transition, the density, the safety, the taking of Zaldia Lane -- I'm going to use that
phrase that I heard earlier, that Zaldia Lane would be taken. I'm also going to use
another phrase heard earlier regarding a good amount of transition, because a good
amount isn't quite as finite as I would like to hear, but I would love to hear what other
people say from my neighborhood. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Deadman: Thank you.
Moe: Next person signed up Don Morgan.
Morgan: Hi. I'm Don Morgan. 4620 South Martinelle Lane, which is just touching this
lot right here. And it's going to be a little redundant with what the gentleman just said.
I'm mainly concerned with the transition and the wall of backyards we are going to see
from our area. I think we are all there for the same reason, that we wanted to be on the
outskirts a little bit and have some open area and we are not too excited about seeing
that kind of density at back yards facing our direction and the bad view that will be. I
would like to see -- I would like to see the plot altered a little bit, so that we had bigger
lots on the perimeter and maybe specify that we only had one story houses on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 9 of 39
perimeter, so that we would have a little bit of a transition without -- without seeing all
those tall backyards -- or tall back fronts of houses. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions, Commission? Thank you. Next person -- is it Phyllis?
De Angeli: Phillip.
Moe: Okay. Come forward.
De Angeli: Hi, I'm Phil De Angeli, 3405 Zaldia Lane. 1'm this guy right here. Here is my
house. My neighbors and I and you folks, the Planning and Zoning, and the City
Council spent quite a bit of time the last couple of years discussing the Kingsbridge
Subdivision, which is abutting the north side of this. Most felt that the large lots
surrounding Kingsbridge indicated that -- that they ought to go with a lower density
building also. And Kingsbridge complied and now they are building a nice development
with single story homes on the perimeter lots and features like berms and trees and
vinyl fencing. City Council's findings of 4/12/05, that's the approval meeting, stated that
Kingsbridge was approved at 1.69 houses per acre. And Napoli, as you have heard, is
asking for almost 3.1 per acre. They also say that although the 1.69 per acre is less
dense than Tuscany's 2.4 across Eagle Road, it's still much denser than the 1.69
houses per acre than the large lot parcels around it, the five and ten, even some 20
acre parcels there. Now, while I'm not against development when it's done fairly, I am
against Napoli as proposed, because the density is just much too great for this area. In
fact, the City Council stated in those -- in the Kingsbridge findings that they believe the
county parcels here would develop at a similar rate to the Kingsbridge 1.69 per acre.
Also, there is no attempt made at a fair transition with the neighbors that I have heard
so far, such as single story on the perimeter lots, some kind of landscaping and
screening, such as trees and berms, and vinyl fencing would be nice. Kingsbridge is
where I got the idea. They are doing all of those things right now and they are going to
be some excellent neighbors, because we have growth and development, but it's nice
when they transition in like that, so everyone's happy. And, most importantly, the
proposal is inconsistent with the development Meridian has previously approved in this
neighborhood. And the reason for so much of this Kingsbridge talk is that if they are
held to a density of 1.69 and, then, immediately afterwards right next door someone
comes up with 3.1 on density, that, to me, is inconsistent and just don't follow it. Thank
you.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the Commission? Thank you. Next on the list will
be Judy. She says she's been spoken for. I can't get the first name, but it's Morgan is
the last name. Okay. She has been spoken for also from the audience. Next I think is
it Theresa? Okay. From the audience she says she has no comments. Next would be
Roger. Okay. Thank you. From the audience he said he's been spoken for. Next
would be Frank Shoemaker.
Shoemaker: Yes. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I reside at 3497 Zaldia Lane right
there. I think it's very critical that we look at the overall map of the area prior to last
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 1 0 of 39
year's Kingsbridge project. This area was completely large acreages, such to the fact
that the Kingsbridge Subdivision, when it was originally asked for approval, was denied
several, times because the density was too high. At the City Council meeting Mayor de
Weerd stated this is such a unique area that why don't we do something like the City of
Eagle. This has some nice larger lots, custom homes, instead of this typical in fill, high
density projects that we see here today. The result of that was Kingsbridge has been
revised several times. We now have extensive common area, waterways, bridges, so
forth. My concern is these homes along this area are -- range in size from 15,500 to
16,000 square feet. Homes along this perimeter that I'm going to see the back end of,
this no buffer zone of landscaping, will, basically, be two story houses on 9,200 square
feet houses -- or 9,200 square feet lots. So, the transition as mentioned earlier does not
comply with what was recommended by the City Council and also the final approval of
Kingsbridge. I'm also concerned about -- and I went to the Ada County Highway District
and asked them how can you advise a developer to put access roads onto a private
lane when you have South Eagle Road here. Their comment was that this Zaldia Lane
at some point in time is going to be a through street. Well, we know that's not going to
happen. And if we look at Ada County's decision process making throughout the valley
you know it's not too smart. So, right here they have lined up Zaldia Lane with the new
phase of Tuscany called Messina Village, We have 29 houses in here, all going to
come out at two different points to this point. They are going to be, then, fighting access
to Eagle Road from all this development here. It's ridiculous. This -- if we are going to
have a nice subdivision here, let's make the lots larger, consistent with Kingsbridge, and
let's put an access out here on South Eagle Road. Now, the highway district said that
they did not -- they want to limit access to Eagle Road by subdivisions, but I think it
would be safer to have an access point here than having everything here. We are going
to be backing up -- I want to come out here, I won't be able to get on Eagle Road.
You're going to have all these houses coming out -- thank you.
Moe: Sir, you --
Shoemaker: Is that one my --
Moe: Yes. Go ahead --
Borup: I would be interested in a little bit more information.
Shoemaker: I thought that was my buzzer.
Borup: It was, but we are giving you some more time. We are giving you some more
time. That was your buzzer.
Shoemaker: So, I think -- you know, and I talked to Justin and Justin got this -- the
developer -- Justin got kind of the runaround at Ada County Highway District, too. They
designed it based upon what Ada County Highway District told them, so I can't fault the
developer for that. But he got different answers than I did down there. But that area
there is going to be an excessive congestion point for everyone trying to get out on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 11 of 39
South Eagle Road. It's a two lane road. There is no turn lanes or anything here. So, I
guess if you look at the overall picture, to me it's too high of density. I'm not opposed to
the development, but I think it should be done consistent with what's taken place on this
side of Eagle Road, not this side of Eagle Road. We have two distinct neighborhoods
here. We don't need to be high density on this side over here. Let's make it pretty nice.
Let's do something different for a change. This has some nice lots and some big
custom homes into this two story tract project. Thank you. Any questions?
Moe: Any questions of the Commission?
Borup: Maybe I have one, Mr. Chairman. And I'm not sure if this is all that pertinent or
not. The individual that used to own this property, did he testify at the previous -- any of
these previous hearings; do you know?
Shoemaker: These people here?
Borup: Yes.
Shoemaker: No, they did not. They -- if they would have been at the meetings, they
would have not designed this project as is.
Borup: No. I mean for Kingsbridge. I was wondering if they testified in any of the
Kingsbridge hearings.
Shoemaker: No, they did not.
Borup: Okay. That was my question. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Next on the list would be Sherry Lewis.
Lewis: I didn't realize when I put my name down there that I would be speaking. I
wasn't really prepared to do that. And I had sent in my comments in e-mail format to
you folks. Let's see if I can figure out how to use that.
Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you begin with your name and address, please.
Lewis: I'm sorry. Sherry Lewis and I'm trying to point out my address. I'm at 4200
South Eagle Road. This 20 acre parcel here. And we have been there for eight years
and we have loved it. It's been beautiful farm ground and -- but we recognize the city's
coming. We are kind of in a unique position, because the business that my husband
and I own deals with development of -- we put things in people's homes, put it that way.
And so we are kind of, you know, both sides of the fence. What I would -- what I would
like to see -- because we know that some day we are not going to be able to take care
of 20 acres. We hope to be able to develop our own 20 acres some day and to be able
to take advantage of that. So, we are not opposed to the development whatsoever. We
would like the city to make sure that the whole area has more up-scale feeling to it and I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 12 of 39
don't know what the Stott's plans are, I haven't seen the -- you know, the precise plans
or anything, so I can't really answer to what they're planning to do, so -- but they are
good people. So, I suspect that they have good things in mind. What I would hope,
though, is because we have a three acre lake on our property, some day if we decide to
develop, we are going to hopefully -- I haven't seen Kingsbridge finished, so I don't
know what it's supposed to turn out like, but we intend to have nice up-scale, maybe
approaching Two Rivers kind of thing in Eagle. So, we would like to make sure that the
whole area can -- has a theme to it, a nice up-scale neighborhood and not that smaller
homes can't do that, but maybe there is -- I don't know what kind of stipulations that you
can place on the area in general, but maybe there is a way to accommodate -- I think
what I'm hearing here is everybody realizes that the development is going to take place,
but they would like to be comfortable with how it fits and flows with the neighborhood.
And I have to say a grew up in the area. I was born and raised right on Cloverdale and
Amity area and it used to be all beautiful farm ground and nobody liked anybody moving
in and breaking up the ground. So, we are all kind of guilty of it to some extent, all of us
that are here speaking of it, we have all imposed on someone else's view, we have all
imposed on someone else's, you know, farm ground and so forth and so I'm glad that
everybody's being civil here and really nice, that's really a nice thing about our
neighborhood. So, let's keep it good. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions, Commission? All right. That was all that was signed up. If there
is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, come forward. Okay. Having
seen none, would the applicant, please, come back up.
Harris: Again, Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West Overland Road. It seems
like everybody's major concern is density and if we look at the Comp Plan for this
subdivision it's shown as medium -- medium density residential, which is an R-8. In our
pre-app with your staff, your staff recommended that we come in at a density of three
units per acre, which we matched that. We also talked with your staff about single story
houses. We knew this question was going to come up because of Kingsbridge. Your
staff made -- I guess the comment that they don't want to see single story houses. It's
too complicated to find out which lots needs to have those restrictions put on it. So, we
are not for limiting the house size or the heights of the houses. Zaldia Lane aligning
with Messina Meadows. again, ACHD requested that. It is a safety issue to have those
align. You have to have a certain offset on those roads per the speed and if a light ever
goes in on Eagle Road there, that's a logical place for a light and it's the safest point for
us to access. Another comment was made on vinyl fences. This subdivision will be
fenced with a vinyl fence. That was brought up, you know, in the staff report, which
some of the neighbors I guess didn't know that. I think that is all the major topics of the
neighbors. If you have anymore questions of me, I will answer any.
Moe: Staff? Excuse me. Commission. No questions?
Borup: Oh, I do, but -- and maybe while you're -- you could stay up there, because I
think mine applies a lot to staff comment, unless you had some information from a
previous hearing, and that's -- I realize that's not the hearing before us, but a lot has
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 13 of 39
been mentioned about Kingsbridge and setting a precedence and I very much like what
Kingsbridge did and has -- or in the process of doing. The question I had is, essentially,
how City Council justifies that with -- when we had a Comp Plan designation of medium
density and -- well, I guess that would be the first question is I -- the medium density is
saying three -- three to eight and the low density would have been three or less, which -
- which is where Kingsbridge fit into as far as the density they did, was they were talking
about doing a one step down, is that what -- is that how that was able to happen?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- if you look at the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map, most of Kingsbridge is, actually, designated low density. They do have
the two pieces that come out and front Eagle Road that are shown as medium density
on that map, but for the part -- a majority of that site is low density or this site is medium
density. This is where it changes from that low density designation to the medium
residential designation. So, being under the same property owner and the same
development, they kind of -- you know, with the land use designations being more of a
guide than a fixed line, you have to stop your density here and now transition it to
medium, they kind of floated that over and said, okay, you are a low density
development. As was mentioned, there were comments -- and I haven't read the
minutes in awhile, but there were comments at that meeting about having this be -- just
due to the nature of the five acre lots and larger rural atmosphere that's out here, you
know, having some estate-type lots -- now, I don't remember those minutes -- the Mayor
or anyone saying that it all has to be estate-type lots, but it was talked about there.
They did like what some of the upscale -- I think Island Woods was talked about and
some of the other ones in Eagle as being kind of guides for how this area could
develop. So, I don't think there were any statements that was like you better come in
with a development like that or else we are not going to approve you, but definitely
when looking at Kingsbridge they -- they thought that was appropriate to have a low
density project there. And we did talk with the applicant when they came in a few
months ago before they submitted and said you are medium, medium is three. I
wouldn't try to go much passed three, but to get staff's support and to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, three is that target minimum goal for that designation. So,
you know, that's something that the city adopted in 2002 and we just try to enforce it.
So, I don't know if that fully answers your question, Commissioner, or not, but that's kind
of what the Council was thinking back then.
Borup: Oh, I think it does partially. So, it sounds like you're saying that -- and I see that
now, that the boundary between the low and the medium was right here, what it looks
like on my map. So, the larger part of Kingsbridge was in the low density, but this part
right here was in the medium density, so City Council's justification on that is because it
was a part -- a part of the other that they allowed the lower density?
Hood: Yes. Essentially because two-thirds of it was this low density designation, they
thought that the other third -- and because that portion does abut Dartmoor, too, and
they are larger lots, too. So, they did want to have that transition from Dartmoor south
onto those -- those fives I think they are. Maybe there are 10 acres, so that 20 acres
there having that low density designation to transition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 14 of 39
Borup: So, it sounds like you're saying staff would have had a problem with two and a
half to three units per acre?
Hood: Not necessarily. It's -- you know, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- just based on
the Comp Plan, it's -- our general rule of thumb is that that designation can slide a
parcel or so -- you know, where do you stop that slide? I mean you get to a point where
you may as well change the map.
Borup: Right.
Hood: And the designation on there. So, there is some flexibility. But if you don't
transition it somewhere, it's all going to be low. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing,
I'm just saying that in 2002 that's what the elected officials wanted to see out there and
our job is just to try to get development that's consistent with that.
Borup: Well, that's also what we as a Commission have been obligated -- I mean we
are obligated to -- or we should be, anyway, to comply with the Comprehensive Plan
also. We don't have quite the flexibility the City Council does. They can kind of make
their own rules as they go almost. All right.
Moe: Any other questions?
Borup: Not at this time, but maybe later.
Harris: Thank you.
Moe: Discussion, Commission? You have already spoken, so -- Commissioners, any
questions? Any comment?
Zaremba: Well, I do remember much of the Kingsbridge discussion and along with the
Mayor and others, I have stated that I am generally very strong on high densities near to
the center and the core of the city. As we get farther out I'm much more willing to listen
to lower densities and I felt that it was appropriate to do what Kingsbridge did and the
final result of that project was very nice. But in some cases when we have a
Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances that now pretty clearly support the
Comprehensive Plan, the developer almost has to volunteer to do something more or
different than what the Comprehensive Plan asks for and, actually, even to go to a lower
density than the Comprehensive Plan asks for, even if the developer wanted to, it's an
uphill battle to accomplish something that might be desirable. And as Commissioner
Borup pointed out, we don't assume that we have the flexibility that the City Council
does. We, along with staff, are pretty well tasked to say does this comply with the
Comprehensive Plan that had like five or six years of public testimony and a great deal
of work and Angst go into it before it was approved in 2002 and I would say that from
what I see our decision is pretty clear. It appears to comply with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 15 of 39
Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, do you have any comments?
Borup: Yes. And I'm still not completely decided on this, but I didn't think I'd ever say
something like this, but I -- I would like -- personally, I would be happy with this project if
it had three or four less lots. And 1'm just looking at the lot sizes and the frontage. I
mean they are nice size, you know, a 9,500 square foot lot is pretty larger than we
normally see. But just realizing what size homes can go on there, you know, some of
those are still only 74 feet wide, which, depending on the plan, can be hard pressed
doing a three car garage on them. And I would much rather see a little less density.
Not a great deal. I'm not -- I'm not talking maybe as much as some of the neighbors
would like, but enough to increase some of these lot widths just a little bit more. And,
again, 1'm not sure how -- they are complying with the Comprehensive Plan, but that
was something that would make me feel better about it. That being said, I would state
that I have never been in favor on any project -- on anything that we have ever seen of
limiting house height. I mean, unfortunately, there is no guarantee of a view. Most
people seem to think the view is towards Bogus Basin anyway, not to the other
direction, but I guess that depends on the time of day and what you want to do. So, I,
for one, would not be in favor of limiting house heights. That is the advantage when you
have got large lots next to something, your house is usually far enough away that the
heights of a house doesn't really make as much difference as -- difference as it does if
you're closer. And I guess that's alii have got to say, unless -- unless there is any other
discussion about increasing the -- or decreasing the density a little bit.
Moe: Okay. A couple comments that I would have -- and I won't get into the same as
the other Commissioners in regards to basically our responsibility to follow the
Comprehensive Plan and whatnot. I also, with Mr. Borup, would agree, I would have
liked to have seen a few less lots. And the other thing that really bothers me within the
subdivision is although you do exceed your open space on this, just putting it in
parkways around the streets and whatnot, there is really no real vision to the
subdivision, other than it's a bunch of houses. I would have liked to have seen a little bit
more imagination on the open space, regardless of the fact that you have got more than
necessary. But, again, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan and based on review of
the meeting minutes and whatnot through the City Council as Kingsbridge and whatnot,
I would assume that depending on how -- how the vote goes tonight, that City Council
can review that Comp Plan and make determination at that point as well, so having said
that --
Borup: Maybe just one comment on yours and that's on the open space. If you have
large lots it's really -- I'm not sure if it makes a lot of sense to have a lot of park space
on ten acres -- when you only have a ten acre parcel to work with.
Moe: I agree with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 16 of 39
Borup: But maybe right along with that, they could take the space that you would like
for a park lot -- for open space and eliminate a few lots and put it into the others and,
then, each individual lot would have more room. Just one more plug for that.
Moe: All right. Yes. The applicant please come forward.
Harris: Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road. Just a couple of
comments as you guys were talking here. Initially on this plan we did come in with two
or three less lots and your staff requested us to bring it up to three units per acre. So,
you know, we came In with it less dense and we were told to bring it up. On the park
strip, we have a 60 foot right over here, which is an eight foot planter strip, which is all
going to be really nicely landscaped with trees and we have a detached sidewalk along
Eagle Road with a berm and also a berm with a detached sidewalk along Zaldia Road.
Your staff in our pre-app was also very accommodating to that, saying the same thing
Commissioner Borup said, is this small of a site you really don't need a park, you
landscape it, you know, on the sides of the roads really nice, it's a really nice feature to
the subdivision. Other than that, that's my only comment, so --
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: Maybe while you're up here --
Harris: Yes, sir.
Borup: -- I would be interested in your other plan. That increased the lot widths --
Harris: I believe we added -- excuse me. I believe we added a lot here and either here
or here. So, the center part I'm pretty sure stayed the same. It's been quite a long time
ago.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Any other comments, Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have one that probably will prove not to be too helpful, but a number of
the neighbors have spoken about having up-scale projects in this area and, again, I say
this -- this one does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, so it's probably a little too
late to make this statement, but those that agree that there may be future further
developments on some of what are five, ten, and 20 acre lots, either along Zaldia Road
or others, might want to have a neighborhood meeting and actually come up with a plan
that could be presented to the City Council that -- the Comprehensive Plan can be
changed. There is a process that does it. And the vision that many of you have
expressed I would happily support. It would mean that you would all need to get
together and have your own neighborhood meeting and just say, well, we are not going
to develop today, but if I or you develops five years from now, here is what we have
agreed that we would all do when some day somebody develops. And if you have that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 17 of 39
as a whole group, it would be easy to make a Comprehensive Plan plan change. There
would be a Public Hearing about it and everybody would have their input, but it could be
done. I would have liked it if maybe that had been done before this project came in, but
for the rest of you, you may want to think of that. That's not a requirement, that's just an
opinion. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-024
and PP 06-023.
Moe: Is there a second?
Borup: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-024
and PP 06-023. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? It is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me run this up the flag pole and see how it works. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, and I don't believe
we had any modifications. End of motion.
Mae: Is there a second?
Borup: No, there isn't.
Moe: I guess I should ask --
Zaremba: The motion would die for lack of a second, if that's going to be the case.
Moe: I need to ask legal counsel --
Borup: I think he can second it, can't he?
Baird: You can second it as the chair.
Moe: ] will second that. Therefore, it has been moved and seconded that we forward
onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and --
Borup: You haven 't voted on it yet.
Moe: Oops. I'm sorry. I remove that motion. Now, let's see --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 18 of 39
Borup: You're doing fine. You're doing fine.
Moe: Okay. Okay. It has -- okay. All those in favor -- AZ 06-0 -- sorry. AZ 06-024 and
PP 06-023, with all staff conditions for the hearing date of June 15th signify by saying
aye. All those opposed same sign?
Borup: Aye. And my opposition is basically just on one area. lid like to see more 80
foot frontage lots.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Okay. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto
City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with the conditions
as the city staff comments.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, just for the record, it was moved, seconded, and approved with
one person in the negative.
Moe: Yes, sir.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57
acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR
Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat
Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406
single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05
acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by
RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S.
Black Cat Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024 for the
request for annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat approval for Baraya
Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Incorporated. And I will open it with the staff report,
please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications
before you include an annexation and zoning request for 95.57 acres. It's currently in
the county today. And there are two zones being requested. 93.89 acres is requested
for an R-8, which is a medium density residential district and 1.68 acres for the limited
office district. The site is located on -- you can see it there. The scale is not the
greatest. It has frontage on Black Cat Road, as well as Franklin, with primarily most of
the frontage being along Franklin Road. It does go a quarter mile east -- excuse me -- a
quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile Road. And, again, has frontage on Black Cat Road.
There is a vicinity map with the proposed subdivision, overlayed within. To give you
some more -- Silver Oak Subdivision, which final platted as Umbria, which you probably
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 19 of 39
didn1t even know that, but Silver Oaks Subdivision, which is a multi-family development,
there is a day care, I think, an office lot or two right near Franklin Road is here. And the
subject plat is proposing to align a roadway -- this looks like the old plat is what's in the
system. There is a roadway that aligns with the public street into Silver Oaks
Subdivision, so I will get off that slide, since it's outdated. And -- let me just make sure
we got -- yeah, this is the good one. Okay. So, here is the office lot that they are
proposing and, then, everything else would be the R-8 zoning. There are 406 single
family residential lots and the one office lot and, then, 23 common lots. I'm going to
point out a couple of the common lots. The largest portion of the open space, besides
the open space that's along the Perdham Drain and the multi-use pathway that also
runs long the Perdham, is this lot here and this lot has a park with open space, a
clubhouse, a pool, those types of amenities. So, really, it's going to be neighborhood
park in this area. It shows up a little bit better, I guess, on the landscape plan, too, as
some of the amenities and some of the tree-lined streets that the applicant is proposing.
Speaking of streets, there is a collector roadway that's proposed, again, to align with the
access in Silver Oaks, comes down and it's a full street section to the southern
boundary of the office lot and, then, it's two-thirds of a street or their portion with the
adjacent property finishing off this roadway when they develop in the future. There is no
front-on housing in this -- along this collector roadway. That access -- and, then, there
is one more access to Franklin Road, basically at the other side of the development,
and, then, they do also have one public street access out to Black Cat located right
here. I think I'm going to stop with the staff presentation. There was -- and just get to
the main issue, I guess, with the plat. In the staff report there -- there is an issue, I
guess, with this being designated medium density residential on everything to the west
here. Basically west of the Perdham, also it runs north-south on the future land use
map. And, then, it being mixed use on the eastern side of the plat. Staff has some
concerns with approving the whole development, being that we are just underway with a
consultant and trying to study what is the highest and best use in this area after the
interchange goes in and that includes roadways and land uses and transitioning those
uses to one another. Everyone kind of has a different opinion on what may work best,
but until the Public Hearing process really gets going and all the stake holders get
involved and something gets proposed, it's a little bit tough to -- for me, anyways, to try
to envision how this area will completely develop. And, again, the concern is that you're
setting a precedent in this area by approving single family residential throughout this
development. The next guy in, really, is at a disadvantage to have to try to work around
that constraint if they don't do the same thing. And I guess the thought throughout the
office is -- or at least some of my coworkers in the office is that this is going to be a
higher intense use, retail, office, maybe even some industrial as you get at the
interstate, possibly. So, again, until that gets determined, in the staff report it asks for
18 months for the city to work with that consultant and, then, adopt a specific area plan
for this area, so we can determine if -- whether or not medium density does work in this
area for this project or not. And it very well may. Again, it was just something to -- we
are asking for a little more time. Since that staff report came out we did meet with the
applicant -- I believe it was Tuesday and Anna, myself, Kent from Bailey Engineering
was there, and Matt Schultz, and we did talk about the staff recommendation. We
discussed this alternative layout that the engineering firm has put together, which,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 20 of 39
basically, takes the single family detached lots along that collector roadway, so now we
are on the far eastern boundary of that plat, and they are proposing townhouse lots.
So, it would be attached three, four, five townhouse -- townhouses together there. It
does provide -- in my opinion it does provide a better transition to whatever is going to
happen across the way, if it's multi-family, if it's office, more intense uses on the other
side of that collector. The collector roadway also does provide a pretty good transitional
breaking point for that. I'm still not totally sold on the idea, but I think it is a compromise
that does -- could work, too, and it would just be something that would be -- have to be
factored in when we get to the specific area plan and say, hey, we have already
approved this development here, it's no longer an assumption, this is here, there is
going to be a single family and a townhouse development right here and go forward with
that specific area plan. So, I guess that's on the -- on the board for the Commission to
decide. That's throughout the staff report, too, is this enough of a mixed use
development, does it comply with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. There are
policies in there and specific standards that say a three to 40 dwelling units per acre are
appropriate in mixed use regional designations, which this property is. So, again, it's
the -- it's the appropriateness of the uses on this site and at the scale. With that, I think
that the staff report pretty much outlines the rest of it. It's really quite a clean layout as
far as compliance with the UDC. There were a couple of changes, but I don't even think
they are worth spending any of the Commission's time with and unless you want to talk
about some of them specifically, so I will stand for any questions.
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think we got a memo that included the subject
that you talked about, about adding a greater density along the eastern border of this.
Totally apart from the merits of that, does a higher density require renotice?
Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry, I should have followed that thought through. If you decide to
approve what the applicant is showing here, they would -- they would need to replat that
area, basically, and rezone it as well, because the R-8 zone doesn't allow lots that are
this size. If they went to an R-15, which would still be appropriate for that -- that mixed
use designation, they could still get the R-15 zone, which allows 2,400 square foot lots
and there is no minimum lot size. So, that would need to be a condition of approval,
that the applicant -- basically, the way I envisioned it was taking some of the language
saying, you know, you don't have approval for anything east of the Perdham Drain and
change it to be anything east of whatever that road is there or the first block west of the
collector roadway up to that micropath along Franklin Road that would require the
applicant to, then, submit a rezone and new preliminary plat for townhouses in an R-15
zone or an appropriate zone or however you choose to word that, I guess.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: What were those lot widths on the townhouse?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 21 of 39
Hood: I believe they are 37, if I -- and the applicant can correct me if 1'm wrong, but
that's, I believe, what Kent told me, they were about 37 feet wide.
Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward.
Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners and staff. My name is Matt
Schultz, with RMR Consulting. I am the applicant. My address is 2127 Alaska Way in
Meridian. And I'm here on behalf of the Baraya Subdivision. It's -- maybe you could
show the overall landscape plan. That probably shows it best. Thank you. This site's
comprised of two separate deeded parcels, one of them being a larger rectangular 80
acres and the other being a little panhandle, if you will, 14 acres on Black Cat. The 80
is bisected by the Comp Plan, in that everything west of the halfway point is shown as
medium density residential, everything east of that is shown as mixed use regional,
which is a very broad Comprehensive Plan paint, if you will. In fact, I went and mapped
out how many acres we have out there of mixed use regional and I think there is eight
or nine hundred in the area of mixed use regional, around the Ten Mile corridor going
both ways along the freeway and we are on the fringe of that mixed use regional plan.
Back in February when we got going on this and we got going very rapidly, we met with
staff, we were concerned about asking for too much density, although the Comp Plan
may support it, there had been some previous decisions at Council that got shot down
with higher densities and they are totally appropriate and the reason they got shot down
makes us a little nervous about asking for too much. In fact, with this layout here we
probably left about 80 or 90 lots on the table, even with an R-8. R-8 would have
allowed us even more than what we have here. We did a mix of some 50s and 60s and
left it -- left it kind of big and loose and nice open space and yet still tried to get four to
the acre. We are, actually, on the east side we are up to about 4.8, a little more efficient
on that side. That was back in February. I don't believe the city put out their RFP for
their study until April. In fact, I don't believe they have even awarded that study yet. I
know they have identified a consultant. They haven't awarded it. We have long since
been done, submitted. we do, in my opinion, conform to the current Comp Plan in that
we believe that what we have on that east side does conform to mixed use regional. It
happens to be residential, with some office. But towards that compromise with staff
earlier in the week -- and you do have a memo to that effect from me, I believe that's the
memo, saying that, yes, we agree this is more density. lt's a problem we usually don't
have. We are usually asked to give away lots, not pick up density, and it's something
that my -- my end user is agreeable to, doing single family detached with some
attached, with a minimum of that many lots, need to go back and see if maybe he wants
to do a little bit more on that -- on that east side. I don't know. But the condition is that
as a minimum we would replat those and that could be in our development agreement,
that we reapply for a rezone and to R-15 for that -- for those blocks along there on that
east boundary. We have done a lot of forward planning, if you will, the pioneering effort
on that -- that area plan in that we have worked with the adjacent landowners. ACHD.
We put the collector on that side, even though we didn't have to. We thought that was a
very good idea to provide a nice transitional buffer between a more intense use towards
Ten Mile and also provide a good access down to the south for potentially future
industrial. Who knows. Instead of putting it in the middle. Which would have taken that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 22 of 39
traffic through the middle of our site, so we put it over on that east side, we thought that
was a good location for it and everybody since then has agreed with us, that, hey, that
was a pretty good idea. And it does line up with the Silver Oak. It's a higher density
residential, I'm not sure what the zoning was, but it's a high density residential and
ACHD is talking about putting a signal there, potentially, which I think is a good idea,
with high density coming from one side and us from the other, I think a signal might be a
good idea. We do have -- actually, you can't tell, but there is actually two regional
pathways potentially on here. There is one along the drain, the long one, and there is
also one there at the connection between the panhandle, the bigger one. You can't
really tell, because it's so short, but the Williams pipeline goes diagonally right through
there and it's about 75 to 100 feet wide. You can't build on it. You have got to turf it.
We may as well put some pathway in it. And it runs through Oregon and down to Utah,
I think. I mean it goes trucking through Meridian and it's going to be a good potential
regional pathway, because you can put a pathway in it, as long as you work very closely
with them and if you don't, then, they will show up in about an hour after you start
digging on it. I guess they fly it twice a day, just making sure nobody messes with that
pipeline, but -- but it is a regional pathway, potentially. We have worked with the parks
department very closely in identifying regionally in this area where the best property is
and we have -- you know, not because it's my property I don't want the park on me, I
just truly believe, if you look at the bigger picture, there is a better spot for a future 20
acre park than this and they do agree with me. They have identified another parcel they
are going to try to get a regional park that links to our regional pathways and that makes
sense regionally. We do have a nice central open space for our residents, a pool, a
nice -- a nice central spot. Pathways connecting to it. We really did believe R-8 was
the appropriate zone, given the timing. The neighborhood commercial zoning wasn't
quite solidified at the time we started this. There was some changes being talked
about. We just weren't comfortable proceeding in that direction. We thought R-8 was
the way to go and we worked closely with Public Works on the Black Cat trunk. It's
going to go down the road parallel to the drain there on the west side and they are going
to start that hopefully very very soon. We are working closely with them on that design
to get that going for everybody and Kent Brown from Briggs Engineering is here to back
me up if I forget anything or shut me up if I start saying something I shouldn't, but I think
he did say it was 33 feet to the lot width on those townhome lots.
Borup: He said 37.
Schultz: Thirty-two -- I think it's 32 and 32 and there is 37 on the ends. There is four of
them attached. That's what we will proceed with probably immediately after this moves
forward. We really to hope start our first phase on that east side, you know, we did truly
pick that even before it came up to the hold thing -- we didn't find out that they wanted to
delay this until a few days ago. We think we are pretty far along to do that and we feel
that we have the best plan and I think there is some advantage to having this in there
first. I really do. I mean having a totally blank slate is sometimes hard to -- hard to deal
with and I think we have made some really key first decisions in the area to make some
of their jobs easier as they move forward on how other things fall into place. But the
main high intensity is really going to be on that Ten Mile corridor. That Ten Mile
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15.2006
Page 23 of 39
corridor, which is a quarter mile away up and down, that's where it's really going to be. I
truly believe that's the break before we go into residential zoning west and when you
look at a bigger map, there is a lot of acres out there for other uses. I guess with that I
will stand for any questions and ask for your approval.
Moe: Any questions from the Commission?
Borup: I don't have any questions, other than comment. I think I can understand the
staff's maybe -- I don't know if concern is the right word, but their -- their comment on
that, it does not -- it does not incorporate very many of the mixed use regional aspects
in there. I mean because it -- I mean it talks about greater than 200,000 square foot
buildings and -- and just about no -- no limit on some of the other uses, up to 40
residents -- you know, up to -- isn't it -- yeah. Forty units per acre. So, I don't know why
you were confused on the -- that there be concern about density when it was already in
the Comp Plan for up to 40 units per acre, but --
Schultz: Well, like I said, mixed use is a very broad range and you're not going to put all
that -- all those components into 40 acres.
Borup: No.
Schultz: You're going to put it into 800 acres, different from pulling some different parts.
There is going to be transitional areas and when they draw these comp plans, as you
know, they use a very broad brush sometimes and they bisect boundaries and --
Borup: Right. And you are -- and you are --
Schultz: And we are bisected and we want one use and so we are trying to work with
everything and get the right mix for the specific area.
Borup: I think I agree with what you're saying, is that closer to Ten Mile where the more
intense use is going to be --
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Moe: Any questions from Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Not at this point.
Moe: I'm just kind of curious, you know, with everything on the east side, you're only
looking at one office lot and the rest of the area is all residential at that point.
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 24 of 39
Moe: Was there any reason why you just picked -- you decided to put one lot for office
in there, just simply because it was mixed use regional?
Schultz: No. In fact, if I could have made it all residential I probably would have, but
with lining up that road across the street, it created an outparcel that, you know, it made
sense to put some office there. Like I said, I truly believe the higher value office,
apartments, shopping centers, malls -- I really truly believe the higher value stuff is
going to happen along Ten Mile first and we would have vacant lots for ten years there if
we set them aside. The buy I think is going to go quicker along those corridors first and
we paid top dollar for this property, we would like to get our best and -- highest and best
use out of it sometime in the near future than long term. Those other areas are going to
go first. They really will. Especially after we annex and, you know, they were out doing
core samples on that the other day on the interchange. They are moving forward on
design. That's going to get going and you're going to see a lot more things start
happening in the next year, probably, but--
Moe: Just another -- I'm just kind of curious as far as that office, I mean what kind of
size are you looking at and do you have any concept plan of what this thing is going to
look like?
Schultz: You know, there is some very good architecture going on right now for offices
and light office stuff that I have seen along Overland and along Franklin in the -- over
here in Silverado and EI Dorado. Something similar to that in appearance. Just a very
modern looking stuff. We haven't got down to an architect on that yet. It will probably
be a dental office or, you know, a pediatrics office like that. In fact, it may just blend in
with whoever does what they are doing to the east of us, we may end up selling it to
them and they can blend it in with whatever they are doing as a contiguous parcel
moving forward. But we haven't been approached by them yet and we will see what
happens as things progress, but--
Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Let's see. On the list here
we have Steve Moore.
Moore: I'm Steve Moore and I live at 820 South Black Cat. This appeal is offered in the
spirit of what I believe is the best for our community. Meridian has been my home since
1972 and I remember the time in the late 70s until the 1990's when the citizens of
Meridian were Boise chamber of commerce's best friend. Boise had the business and
industrial revenue and Meridian had the expense of building the houses and schools for
employees for those enterprises. In short, our community was an unbalanced bedroom
community. In the last decade we have seen a great turnaround, more balance,
business and industry locating, as well as residences to a balanced growth. This
particular subdivision, in my opinion, represents a step back in the wrong direction. My
concern is fueled by reality such as a recent front page Idaho Statesman article noting
the population shift to the west, so that the population center of our valley is now Eagle
Road and Pine Street. This shift predictably will continue west and may soon be at Ten
Mile Road and Pine Street. Availability of residential parcels are and will continue to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 25 of 39
less of an issue in the long term Meridian and commercial and industrial parcels. A
healthy community preserves it's most attractive and logical places for commercial and
industrial use, not already taken for residential use. Residential use contributes far less
and takes much for financially from a community. It appears to me that Meridian's
present impact area and proposed impact areas offer many more places to build houses
than logical industrial and commercial options. Specifically, Meridian has only one
interstate and one railroad track and areas in proximity to them should be preserved for
their best use. As an off ramp continues to -- comes to Ten Mile, the present face of our
community can change for the better radically. Unfortunately, mistakes of the past will
be financially compensated. It's too bad that an interchange was not decided and built
years ago with a legitimate artery going north to Chinden years ago. We are
consequently left with incredible amounts of pollution, road rage, wasted time, to name
a few of the compromises created to our quality of life in its tardiness. Ten Mile north
and south will never be the way it could have been and millions is going to be spent
seeking to improve an unnecessary lack of planning and zoning requiring right of way.
Houses will be moved. Turmoil among homeowners and clinical entities, tension
between residential and commercial or industrial use. Why make that mistake again.
Residential use of this property is -- in this sector of our city is a mistake. Traffic
patterns and street uses for residential property is far different than mall, commercial,
industrial residential and community uses. Demands of city services for residences are
radically different in the sense of police, fire, sewer, schools, traffic flows, et cetera. In
summary, I think it is a mistake to allow these 400 plus homes and others in the future
within this sector. If this subdivision is approved, I will not be surprised if this
Commission is soon hearing requests for other residential developments in all directions
within proximity, including a request for variances. I am very heartened to hear that the
staff of this city is asking for 18 months to decide a better use for this area. I have no
personal animosity to these developers and the property owners and I respect the fact
they have invested greatly to be a part of the application. However, it was their choice
to risk, as we just heard in testimony, top dollar for this area. And as was made point by
the staff member, what we are doing is setting a tone and disadvantaging neighboring
property owners and future development. My appeal is one of principle, I believe, and I
ask that you put the brakes on a land use that will affect our community adversely in the
long run and disadvantage and limit contiguous development. One interstate, one
railroad track, Jet's protect it from Meridian's planned growth wisely and avoid previous
mistakes. Let's not be a bedroom community, let's be a city and control our own
destiny. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Next on the list would be Ryan Stoker.
Stoker: Yeah. My name is Ryan Stoker. My residential address is HGR-33, Box 2606,
Las Vegas, Nevada. My local business address is 320 East Corporate Drive, Meridian.
If you could go back up on one of the earlier -- yeah. Currently, we are in contract with
a group to purchase this 40 acres. This and this. The basic issue I have with this
subdivision is there is virtually zero access. The access provided currently is aligned to
this road over and down. This is zoned for medium density. This is mixed use regional.
Mixed Use Regional. The issue here is going to be if we are going to be providing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 26 of 39
access out onto Ten Mile, you're going to be off the 120 acres dumping a tremendous
amount of traffic out on Ten Mile with no access this way and I can certainly see this
going forward as a development, this being built, we do something on a medium density
residential here and, then, we get protested by the people living there, because we end
up having to run our traffic through their subdivision. 1 support staffs current plan to go
ahead and take an 18 month continuance on this, so that they can look at this and
analyze it, because I think that's something that needs to be looked at. These three
parcels, basically, have no direct existing access to either Ten Mile, Black Cat, or
Franklin and, obviously, 1-84 is down on the southern boundary there. Any questions?
Borup: Yes. Have you had any discussion with the parcel to your northeast?
Stoker: We are trying to contact those parcels. We, actually, have a pre-application
meeting next Wednesday at 1 : 15 with city staff.
Borup: So, this is the parcel that you have here; is that correct?
Stoker: Yes. Currently under contract from the Brandts.
Borup: But you're not sure -- you haven't talked to these people?
Stoker: No. We have got a call in to them and we are supposed to meet them on
Wednesday of this next week, both this parcel, this parcel, and I believe this parcel.
What we want to do is talk to these guys about, hey, how can we look at this overall
area and develop it into something that works for everybody and we aren't necessarily,
you know, trying to do the same thing on the same parcel. We can get a compliance --
or complimentary zoning and use out of all this stuff in this area.
Borup: It looks like right now the Comp Plan has this -- just this square here as a
medium density and the rest of this is mixed use.
Stoker: Exactly. Yeah. This is the mixed use regional here, which is the 200,000
square feet, up to 40 units per acre. This is the medium density, the 40 acres right
there.
Borup: Thank you.
Stoker: Time's up? Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Caleb, I do have one question for you. When he brought
up the 18 months, within that report, that 18 months is, basically, the property east of
the Perdham Drain; right? Or is that the whole --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, yeah, that's correct. In the staff report everything to
the west of the Perdham Drain could be platted as soon as they can do their
engineering and get their final plats in. And, then, we are just asking for 18 months for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 27 of 39
the things east of the Perdham Drain to not be platted until that consultant can get done
with their work.
Moe: I wanted to make sure you were aware of that, because that is property that the --
the property just north of what he was discussing, so that is not --
Borup: This is the Perdham Drain here?
Moe: That is correct. Everything east of that, then, would be the 18 months. Next
person on the list Ron Moore.
R. Moore: Good evening. Ron Moore. 350 South Black Cat. And, myself, I think it's a
little bit too dense of development for that area. Right now the traffic, if you tried driving
through there at 5:00, 6:00 o'clock at night, I have seen traffic from Ten Mile back clear
up to Linder, to where it's just going to stack on what we already have and until that
road's widened or something, it's just -- it's going to create gridlock even worse than
what we already have, plus the construction that's going on with that off ramp to where
so if you stack all that on there and as per the townhomes and so on, I think that's kind
of even be just way too dense. I would just as soon see larger lots there, but that's my
opinion on it.
Borup: But you don't want to see residential there?
R. Moore: I would actually -- I was told from the previous property owner of that at one
point in time that he had intended on some type of medical use, stuff like that, because
you have got the freeway access there, Meridian, really, hasn't got any good
commercial areas that I know of to -- downtown Main Street, that's -- there is nothing
you can really do there to where I'd rather see it go more towards small office and so on
out there, but I'm not opposed to going either way, as long as it's a controlled growth.
Borup: You realize once the interchange goes in the cars are not going to be stacking
up on Franklin, more than likely, they will be stacking up on the freeway.
R. Moore: Yeah. I hope not, but -- yeah, look at Eagle and Garrity, they both stack up
right now, too.
Borup: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Next on the list is --
Zaremba: If I'm remembering ACHD's five year work plan correctly, somewhere in the
next few years that section of Franklin is going to become five lanes, so that will help a
little bit.
Moe: Okay. Next on list is Brad. Come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 28 of 39
Janicek: Commission, my name is Brad Janicek and I live at 4325 West Chinden
Boulevard in Meridian and I have this piece of property right here --
Borup: Oh, you're the one.
Janicek: -- this 80 acres right here. And on a minor scale 1'm opposed to -- in this
application here it has three stub outs that come onto my property within a quarter of a
mile and I'm adamantly opposed to that and I don't need three stub outs coming in. The
one that's at the quarter mile line, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But these
other two -- you know, I don't know what 1'm going to do with them on my property. My
intention with this property here is definitely commercial, not residential. And as the
staff report said, you know, if you do residential here, then, the next guy in is probably
going to have some problems and that's probably going to be me. So, I'm opposed to
those three stub outs. On the bigger picture -- and the first fellow, I believe his name
was Pete, he said it eloquently, in that, you know, the center of the Treasure Valley
could wind up at Pine and Ten Mile and here in Meridian we have got a chance to get
this off-ramp here and in spite of a study or not, I think good logic just tells you that this
probably needs to be commercial here and it probably doesn't not need a residential
area in it. It's probably going to just cause problems. We got the fellow from Las Vegas
that's got the Brandt place, his intention, you know, is commercial. Hawkins-Smith has
this here. His intention is commercial. Shacurry is here. He's told me his intention is
commercial. Gary Carney is here. His intention was commercial. And this actual piece
of property was owned by Ronald Van Auker, who is a commercial developer, until he
sold it to them. So, I think it's pretty obvious that the intent of this area is to be
commercial and I think that's what fits in the City of Meridian. End of story. Thank you
for your time.
Moe: Any questions?
Borup: Just one. I mean that is true, most of it is intended for that, but there is some of
it that's still designated as medium density residential in the Comp Plan, unless we look
at changing the Comp Plan, but it was changed with the interchange in mind and all this
was changed to the -- to the regional use there. And, then, the only other comment is it
sounds like Mr. Stoker would like talk to you about seeing what -- what plans you both
have for your properties. So, maybe this is a chance for both of you to get together.
Thank you.
Janicek: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else who would
like to speak.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle as my business address,
This is the second property that our engineering firm has had on this piece of property.
The previous client walked after we had a bunch of mixed uses east of the Perdham
and the direction a few months ago that the City Council was headed and so we went in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 29 of 39
with a little trepidation. But over the period of time that we have been working with staff,
some of the things that have come up as we have kind of looked at this area is that they
have talked about an east-west collector going somewhere in here to help move the
traffic, kind of like a frontage road, kind of like what Overland acts to the freeway and,
then, also having north-south collectors. If you extend here pretty close to the half mile,
the discussion in our previous plat that we were bringing forward until the client decided
to go away, was to come in here at the half mile with a collector and, then, follow the
topography. There is a great grade change here. Everything along the -- that backs up
to the drain drops off quite rapidly and so the discussion, basically, came and where
does this collector here that feeds the commercial area need to be. If you come all the
way out with a collector here and you run the collector through the residential or the
mixed use that you would have there, you end up having an opposite situation that you
would have at Sutherland Farms and Silverstone, where you have the commercial out
next to Overland and the residential behind and you would have industrial users driving
through those mixed uses to get to the commercial area. So, realistically, the decision
for us to put the collector on this site makes a definite line and a change. As we looked
at the design of this, looked at other interchanges in the area, the Milwaukee
interchange there next to the Town Square Mall, you look at that and maybe as you
drive into that you see Chilli's and where Costco used to be and you see those
commercial uses, but on top of that grade change is low density residential. Closer as
you get to the freeway there is high density with some apartments. As I looked at each
and every interchange, at Cole that the state transportation department just completed,
you have industrial on the south, but in every case, closer than we are to where this
future interchange would be, is residential, medium family, low density, residential uses
in those interchanges. I have copies of those here if you'd like to look at some of those
and I have labeled them. But looking at that, the interchange basically takes about this
much room here. You take the Town Square Mall, if you put that in, it would fit,
basically, in an area like this. The Town Square Mall is on the right side for right turns in
and out type of a situation as you look at that. I think that we have made a wise choice
in the way that we have tried to put this together. Yes, we are drawing a line in the sand
and saying, you know, you need to transition from this point. The gentleman from Las
Vegas here talking about that his traffic will go to the north, maybe he's not aware of
what ACHD makes us put at those stubs. A big sign that says these roads are
extending in the future type of situation. Makes -- and puts those people on notice they
will be going through those streets. I'd stand for any questions.
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one and that was, again, maybe a minor thing, but on
the -- the three stubs in -- on the area to the east --
Brown: To the Janicek property?
Borup: Yeah. Was that -- was that done because of block length or ACHD --
Brown: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 30 of 39
Borup: That was the only reason?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: And does this stub right there need to be there to comply with the block length?
Brown: Everybody seemed happy with what we have provided, so I mean that -- I
guess we could make that one go away. It is one lot away from the other.
Borup: My thoughts are just on -- I mean if this is intense commercial development, it
makes -- I mean I like the idea of interconnectivity and not having things -- but here it
would be a cut through, a convenient cut through for people, perhaps. Here it's
available if need be, but it's not going to be convenient.
Brown: I guess --
Borup: Maybe staff may have a comment.
Brown: When you look at -- as I sat on -- in your shoes on the P&Z Commission years
ago when the Crossroads came in, the residential was the first thing that went in to what
I believe and what we have heard recently as the busiest intersection in the state of
Idaho and that residential use went in and they did have connections to that area. You
have industrial users behind them and commercial to the front of them and I believe that
this neighborhood does the same thing. I know from my client's standpoint we are not
opposed to removing the stubs if you're supportive of that.
Borup: I'm in favor of the stubs. I don't know that this one is necessary, is my only
comment.
Brown: From my standpoint what we tried to do is keep as far away from the drain as it
made some sense of how buildings might back up in there, but we are just providing
connectivity. If you wanted to remove one or more of those stubs, this collector level
road on the easterly boundary is the one that I think is critical and, realistically, if
someone can make a decision as to where that collector needs to be, then, you're
deciding where the mixed use or mixed use being commercial, office-type uses need to
be. The decision for us to put it here has to do with the topography difference that you
have here. Truly, that's -- that's the reason. You put it closer to that --
Borup: But you have got that in a good spot. It makes sense. And my comment is just
based on the previous testimony that it should not have any and I wouldn't agree with
that, either, not have any, but --
Brown: In our discussion with Mr. Janicek from our neighborhood meeting with the
highway district and everywhere else, we made them aware that we are not opposed to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 31 of 39
those going away and we have made them aware that we might write them a letter and
ask for some of those stubs to go away.
Moe: Mr. Zaremba, do you have a question?
Zaremba: No, I don't have a question for Mr. Brown.
Brown: Thank you.
Moe: All right. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Seeing none, the
applicant, please.
Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz again. There were three or four different comments I
wanted to respond to real briefly and maybe I will just start with the most recent one
first, Mr, Borup's point about the stub streets. We have been working with Brad all
along, saying, Brad, ACHD is a little stub happy, you know, we put them in because
they want them, we'd like to delete them, but they like them. I'm all for -- especially the
one that Mr. Borup pointed to -- deleting that, I think that's unnecessary for sure. The
other one -- hard to say. You know, yeah, I guess at worse case you could cul-de-sac it
off later and that would be a turnaround or something and blend it in with what he's got.
But for now, not knowing what that's going to be, I mean Brad could sell that to
somebody else and they may decide to do something different than what he's thinking
today. It's hard to say what's going to happen with that property until it gets submitted.
So, the stub street -- I don't know how we could word that condition, but that we -- that
we delete that stub street and, then, we will just go back in front ACHD and get that
done. You know, we will take it to them, because you do have the ultimate jurisdiction, I
believe, over ACHD when it comes down to issues. It is your city and you can make
that decision and we will try to get it done with them, so -- Franklin. You are correct, Mr.
Zaremba, ACHD is, as we speak, trying to write a check for right of way along Franklin.
Since we closed on it, they're like let's buy it. So, they are moving forward rapidly with a
five lane design and construction. I'm not sure when they plan to construct it. I mean
soon is two years in ACHD terms, but--
Borup: To Ten Mile you're talking or from --
Schultz: To Ten Mile --
Borup: I mean to Black Cat is what I meant.
Schultz: I believe it's all the way from Ten Mile to Black Cat on Franklin, widening out to
five lanes, and we have accounted for that in our design. There is some big power
poles on the north, so we had to shift over the right of way slightly onto ours, put the
sidewalk in an easement, but there is room to put five lanes in there and we have been
working closely with ACHD on that. As far as an 18 month hold on this, I just don't think
that's real feasible. Obviously, for us 18 months is an eternity around here in terms of
how things change and where we are at and we believe that the time is right, this does
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 32 of 39
meet the Comp Plan. We do believe it meets the Comp Plan that was already
previously approved and to the bedroom community point, Meridian is no longer a
bedroom community for Boise and I work in Meridian, I live in Meridian, you see more
and more people wanting to live in Meridian because of all the energy, the new
commercial that they are getting around Eagle right now. It's outside. And they will get
more. We are going to see them all pretty soon, probably. I mean it's hard to say what
we are going to see here. It gets exciting, though. I'm excited for Meridian and what we
are getting here and it's not a bedroom community anymore. It really isn't. It's where
people want to work and live and recreate and everything else, so -- I mean with that we
think we have got the right plan at the time and we ask that you move it forward with the
condition that we replat the east side or reapply for a rezone on those -- that one block
for the R-15, I believe. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Discussion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have to comment that I agree with absolutely everybody who
has spoken tonight on all sides of the issue. Everything that has been mentioned and
some of which are not compatible with each other, but everything that was mentioned is
something that I have thought about on this property. I live farther north along Black
Cat Road and I drive this stretch frequently and look at that piece of land, look at the
interstate, which you can still see from there, from Franklin Road at this point, and think
about what a marvelous commercial area this would be for maybe even that whole
square mile. I would have thought at least the closest half mile to Ten Mile, which I
think probably splits the property about here, would be the half mile from Ten Mile --
should certainly be considered to be heavily commercial, retail, other kinds of
commercial. However, it is pretty much a mixed use designation and mixed use does
include residential. Just looking at this piece of property it's not much of a mix. This is
all residential. So, in some respects it -- if you consider the whole area, this is part of
the mix. If that's going to be residential, then, I very much support a higher density of
residential that close to Ten Mile and the interstate interchange, even higher than you
have proposed. Maybe, again, as far as here and to the east of that being higher, just a
small issue, I would agree with not having this stub street. I think if this is a collector
and you have another stub here, that would be -- seems to me to be plenty for both
properties, this one and the one to the south of it. I really would like the plan that the
city is -- I mean they don't have the plan yet, but the fact that they are hiring consultants
and going to do a well thought out plan for this area, I wish that had already happened.
It would be nice to know what that's going to be before having to make a decision on
this. Do I feel so strongly that I would hold this up for 18 months? That's a tough one.
Probably not. Which brings me back pretty close to, essentially, what the staff has said
and what the applicant has talked about, a little greater density in that one area, but if I
understand the staff request, it is to, essentially, recommend approval of what we are
seeing, but put an 18 month hold on part of it and if nothing comes of the design for the
whole area, then, this applicant already has an approved plan. But if -- and a lot of the
people are in the room tonight that can bring this focus to -- you know, if you all get
together, it sounds like even this applicant would listen to some change on that eastern
portion. And if it were to come about that there was -- needed to be change there, if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 33 of 39
there had been that 18 month hold on that part, then, the change would be appropriate
at that time, if I'm understanding the way the staff is asking. I read it a couple of times
and I think that's what's being asked for. So, I guess after going around a whole lot of
circles, I probably am in support of the staff report exactly as it is, with two changes, and
that is the mention to greater density along here and eliminating this one stub street.
That's a long way to say not very much. I'm sorry.
Moe: Mr. Borup, do you have any comment?
Borup: I think Mr. Zaremba said -- said it very well. Only one thought I had and this just
kind of came to me as he was talking and also with the benefit of the other testimony,
where we -- there has been some discussion on this being a mixed use and mixed use
includes the commercial and the residential. Well, the previous testimony states that to
the south, to the east, and across Ten Mile is all going to be commercial, if that's the
case and, then, we try to make this commercial, then, we are maybe weighing too much
to the other way. We are not getting any of the residential mix in a mixed use. Now, if
we are looking at the area as a whole, this probably does help balance it out if this is --
this is a residential area, assuming that there will still be some maybe higher density
coming in -- coming in somewhere, but so far we -- I mean it sounds like the -- most of
the plans are for a commercial use. So, my thoughts have changed a little bit that
maybe having this residential does balance out the area -- you know, that area at hold
there as mixed use, if you take it all in consideration.
Moe: I have kind of gone back and forth on this project as well. Again, I would say I'm
pretty much in agreement with both of you as well. The first time reviewing this I did
take into account the fact that it is mixed use regional and when I saw residential and
one office building, it just doesn't do much for me in mixed use regional when we go
through this, but based on testimony that I have heard tonight, I do agree with Mr.
Borup, it sounds like everyone around is anticipating going commercial, but I guess
what I would also say in that regard is -- is that you are also in mixed regional and,
therefore, you may, in fact, need to plan others, other than just commercial as well with
in your properties as well. My biggest concern when I saw this is that we are taking the
residential component and you're first in, so you're taking it all and, then, basically,
everybody else will do something else. That may work itself out. But I guess I would
say I'm in agreement with Mr. Zaremba as well. I would like to wait this 18 months and
see what the study can bring forward, at least the property to the east of the Perdham
Drain. I have no problem with what you have noted as your phase one. Other than
that, that's alii have to say.
Borup: And I guess I didn't clarify my comments. When I said I was in agreement, I --
other than that aspect, because of my belief that it does balance out overall, I don't
know that -- in my mind I don't see use in waiting 18 months will accomplish a lot. I
think the study is important and maybe should have been done a long time ago. We
have been talking about a Ten Mile interchange for 30 years and so this isn't anything
new. But I realize the city is still growing and stretching and in the planning.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 34 of 39
Moe: I guess [ would just make the comment again that because they are the first in,
you're giving them the benefit to go ahead and anticipate that their mixed -- mixed use
regional is going to be just the one office, along with, you know, the higher density
residential and the components.
Borup: No. I realize -- that was the same concern I originally had, but now I'm looking
at -- at a more -- at the overall area, assuming that the testimony we heard tonight is
fairly accurate, that this -- this would be -- this may be the majority of the residential
aspect of the whole area.
Schultz: May I approach? I have something that relates to actual areas and --
Moe: That would be fine.
Schultz: You know, I didn't make multiple copies like I should have to hand to you, but if
I could -- I did a little analysis in anticipation of this discussion and stepping back
regionally, this area analysis is going to study 2,700 acres. It's going to study 1,700
north of the freeway and 900 south. You know, that's like four square miles. Within that
four square miles we have currently, in the current Comp Plan -- I'm just taking the
current Comp Plan and doing areas. I measured these on the computer. 682 acres of
low residential, 582 acres of medium residential, only 48 acres of high. 65 acres
commercial. 385 acres industrial. 864 acres of mixed use regional. And, then, 61
acres of mixed use neighborhood. This Baraya Subdivision is 94 acres. This is only
three percent -- three and a half percent of the overall study area. The 40 acres is one
and a half percent of the overall study area. And, like I said, we have over -- in the
Comp Plan today there is probably over 1,250 acres -- 1,300 acres of low, medium, high
density residential within the area and only 65 of commercial. So, that just goes to
show you that that mixed use regional is going to be something of all those previous
ones. It's going to be probably not very much residential, but a lot of commercial,
because there is only 65 showing actually commercial today, to mixed use. So, it's
interesting stats. I like to do the numbers, I like to see the percentages. It gives some
reality to what we are looking at in that this is not a big chunk of the residential in this
study area. It's actually a very small chunk when you count the areas. So, I hope that
helps a little bit and I can just introduce this for the record, please.
Moe: Thank you very much. Any other discussion? No discussion, is there any
motion?
Zaremba: I think I spilled everything that I had to say. It doesn't bring me any closer to
believing that there is one right answer, but with the additional comments also made, as
for the study in a four square mile area around what will eventually be an interchange, I
still lean towards being supportive of this with the staff requirements and it doesn't deny
the eastern portion of this, but it just asks them don't build it yet and it may very well be
that in discussion with the other neighbors who have now identified themselves, even
the applicant might decide something different with that eastern portion. But if 18
months from now nothing has happened, there doesn't need to be a further Public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 35 of 39
Hearing for them to go forward with what's already -- the only other option would be to
hold the whole thing off -- or, well, deny it. I don't feel strongly enough about it to deny
it. I don't feel strongly about it to just continue the whole process for 18 months. I think
it's a good compromise to say let's put this on the boards, don't make it happen on the
eastern portion of it yet, but if there is no other answer by 18 months from now, go
ahead. I'm comfortable with that.
Borup: Yeah. Which number was it in the staff report that asked for 18 months in their
conditions of approval?
Zaremba: I thought it was in the development agreement, but I'm looking at it right now.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's the first bullet point on Exhibit D,
page one.
Borup: There we go. I wasn't reading fast enough.
Zaremba: While Commissioner Borup is mulling that over, I would comment on another
18 month that's suggested in the same place and that is that the applicant would have
18 months to contact the city attorney for the development agreement. I'd rather see
that be -- we have had some discussions on this. I'd rather see that be two months or
no statement at all as to length of time. Anybody care if we change that to two months?
Borup: I'm sorry, which --
Zaremba: I'm talking about how long the applicant has to contact the city attorney to
even make the development agreement happen. The actual annexation ordinance gets
help up until this happens and --
Borup: And that consisted -- what was it we had talked about, was it two months?
Zaremba: We have talked about shortening that time frame considerably and I think
two months was what we compromised on. Maybe Caleb knows differently.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what we talked about at that joint
meeting here, I don't know, six months ago now, with the City Council, there is no
deadline for development applications to submit their development agreement or sign
them and return them. So, we have ones that are three and four years old that have
never been signed and the problem is that they don't expire. So, the 18 months I think -
- there was not a consensus on that. This is something that we have been putting in the
staff reports recently as ordered by the director, for 18 months, but that isn't something
that's code, so feel free to modify that as you see fit. I think we are going to work on
putting some six month or 12 month duration -- sometimes two months -- not in this
case, but sometimes you get owners that are out of town, overseas, and there is some
back and forth with the legal department, too, in these oftentimes and two months is --
for someone that's really working on it can be tough to make sometimes, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 36 of 39
Zaremba: I believe there was definitely a consensus in having a deadline, which, as
you say, traditionally there hasn't been one, but it seems like there should be one. And I
agree there was a mixed discussion about how long it should be.
Borup: r was thinking six to 12.
Zaremba: Six months sounds like--
Borup: Six to 12 was --
Zaremba: I would go with six months.
Moe: One other point on page one, Exhibit B, your second to the last bullet point on the
second sentence there, on the direct lot access, should that not be Franklin Road also?
Not Victory Road?
Hood: You are correct. I must have cut and pasted that condition in.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: Lefs see. Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup was studying the 18 month
delay on the eastern portion of it and I await his discussion.
Borup: Well, yeah, my opinion hasn't changed. I think this is a small portion of the area
and I don't think I would -- I'm not in favor of delaying that.
Zaremba: If we left that in there, would that be a deal breaker for you?
Borup: Well--
Zaremba: Want to deny?
Borup: -- I voted no one other time.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. I'm just wondering. Just trying to work it out. In that case,
Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP
06-024. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 37 of 39
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: So, you mentioned you're going to talk about rezone and, then, the stub that
was on the other changes?
Zaremba: Yes. Just where are we going to put that. I think I know where that's going
to go.
Borup: 7.11 on the stub maybe. And I don't remember the name of that street, but--
Hood: Castle Peak Avenue is the first stub street due west of the collector.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: I believe I'm ready. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ
06-025 and PP 06-024, presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th,
2006, including approval of the preliminary plat, dated March 22, 2006, with the
following modifications. On Exhibit B, page one, that's the beginning of the annexation
and zoning section, the applicant shall contact the city attorney to initiate this process
within 18 months -- I would change that to six months. I -- one, two, three, four, five --
after the sixth bullet I would add another bullet that says that the applicant will change
the plat to have the eastern section east of Castle Peak Avenue become R-15? Okay.
And not the bottom bullet, but the second bullet up from the bottom in the last of that
sentence is Victory Road needs to be changed to Franklin Road. Still in Exhibit B, now
on page nine, under section 7.11, the fifth bullet down it talks about a stub street at
Castle Peak and that stub street shall not be stubbed. I believe that's everything. End
of motion.
Borup: Second.
Moe: All right. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024, include all staff comments for the
hearing date June 15th, 2006, with modifications as noted in the motion. All those in
favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign?
Borup: Aye. Commissioners Newton-Huckabay is not here. Someone has to stick up
for her.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15, 2006
Page 38 of 39
Moe: Thank you very much. Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Let's see. We have already dealt with Items 10 and 11, so the next thing on
the agenda is the video presentation. It's a 25 minute video and my question would be
do we want to take a five minute break before we do it or just do it?
Moe: Mr. Borup, what is your pleasure?
Borup: Let's just do it.
Zaremba: Let's get it done. Okay.
Item 12:
Video Presentation - Green Buildings and Bluer Skies:
Mae: Go right ahead. We will have the video presentation.
(Video presentation.)
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Borup: Second.
Moe: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 15,2006
Page 39 of 39