2006 08-03
Meridian Plannin~ and Zonina Meetina
Auaust 3. 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 3, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Chairman Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
and David Moe.
Members Absent: David Zaremba.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch, Justin
Lucas, Amanda Hess and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning to order and we will begin with the roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. To start off with we'd like to start with the adoption of the agenda and
there is one change in the agenda. Items 9 and 10, both related to Northborough
Subdivision, will not be heard tonight and that project will be continued to the special
meeting that we are going to have on August 31 st and that will -- that's the date that that
hearing will be continued to. So, if there is anybody here for that particular project,
that's when it will be heard. So, other than that, the agenda will stay as published.
Could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 2 of 56
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5
square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and
material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C-G zone for H & H
Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. - 225
West Franklin Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
06-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit Modification for
residential home built two feet into five foot setback (sold prior to
discovery of mistake) for Fulfer Subdivision No. 5 (Lot 4, Block
5) by Russell Dunstan - 2593 W. Ditch Creek Drive:
Rohm: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there is three items
on that and first is to approve the minutes of the July 6th Planning and Zoning meeting.
Item B is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-019, both --
or this related to H&H Utility Contractors, Incorporated. And the third item is Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 06-001 related to Fulfer Subdivision
No.5, Lot 4, Block 5. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Very good.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Have we established the pace?
Rohm: This is the pace. We should be out of here by 7:20. And could we get the
minutes to reflect that Commissioner Borup is here. Okay. Before we open up any
hearings, for those of you that generally are not in attendance at these meetings, what
we do is we first ask the staff to present the project from a staff perspective where they
take a look at the project as it relates to city codes and the Comprehensive Plan. They
present the project from that perspective. Once they have presented the project from
their perspective, then, the applicant has an opportunity to sell the project to us as the
Commission and once those two presentations have been made, then, it's open to the
public for their comment. Once the public has made their comments, then, the applicant
has an opportunity to respond to any testimony offered on that project. That's pretty
much the way the procedure goes. And, then, throughout that procedure if we need to
get clarification from either staff or our attorney, will ask those questions as we go
along. But, generally speaking, once we open a hearing and take testimony, we try to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 3 of 56
act on that project the same evening. There are times that we end up having to
continue for whatever reason, but, generally speaking, we try to conclude.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.95
acres from R4 (Ada County) to L-O (Limited Office District) for Ashtyn
Park Annexation by David N. Price -- 201 W. Ustick Road:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open up the Public Hearing for AZ
06-034 for Ashtyn Park annexation and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. There is the Ashton Park
annexation. It is just an annexation application. There is not an associated
development application for the 2.95 acres that is being requested to be annexed into
the city and zoned to L-O, office zoning. You may recall last year this same parcel was
also before you and you forwarded on a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council did deny that application, primarily because there was not a detailed
enough concept plan for the site and it was at that time, too, just an annexation request,
but it wasn't real firm on how that site would develop out. So, the owner of this property
has hired The Land Group and have put together a concept plan, which I will show you
here in just a minute for how that site will develop and staff has taken that concept plan
and some of the other provisions that are generally put into place for properties that just
have a concept plan on them into a development agreement that we'd like the City
Council to approve for this site, so when it develops it does resemble the concept plan
that they are proposing. To orient you a little bit, this site is located on the southeast --
or southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. I'll move to the aerial here. It is just
east of the church and day care. This -- actually, part of this parcel was just until
recently owned by the church and that's why about half of this property is designated on
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map as public, quasi public, and the other half
is designated as residential, because back in 2002 the church did own this parcel or
portion of this parcel and it was shown as public, quasi public. They have since
deemed it unnecessary for their uses and have sold it to Mr. Price. To the south are a
couple of single family homes in the county. Those homes are zoned RUT. Across.
Meridian Road is Eastbrook Subdivision. There is a public street there, Eastbrook, just
south of Meridian Road. I'm sorry. Just south of Ustick Road. It's about 200 feet south.
And I'll touch on access here in just a minute. To the north across Ustick is Settler's
Park. And, then, if you go kitty-corner to the northeast corner of the intersection is the
office uses that are approved in Sundance Subdivision. They are just going to be under
construction, if they haven't broken ground. I haven't been out there in a couple of
weeks, but they should be breaking ground on the office uses there on the corner of that
intersection. So, here is the aforementioned concept plan. There are six buildings
shown on this plan. The access point, as I also mentioned, is at the far southern
boundary of the site. The previous plan -- there were a couple of concept plans with the
'05 application that was processed. The access point at that time, ACHD required them
to align that driveway with Eastbrook Drive, I think it is, that is directly across Meridian
Road. The ACHD has recently -- I don't want to say rescinded that staff report, but they
have updated it to reflect this concept plan and requiring the applicant now to have that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 4 of 56
driveway be no less than 315 feet south of Ustick Road. So, that's generally where you
will see the driveway and staff has also required that that driveway connect up with the
church parking lot, so that a reciprocal easement can be granted, so that people on this
property can get through the church up to Ustick Road and vice-versa, church patrons
can come through this property and get to Meridian Road. So, not everyone has to go
through this intersection if you were heading back to the west and you're at the
chiropractor's office or whoever may be in here. And same with the church, if you are
just heading south you can cut through the office development and continue on and
bypass that intersection. There are several provisions in the development agreement. I
don't know that I need to touch on all of them. Some of them, just real quickly, have a
minimum -- or maximum size, excuse me, for each of these buildings to be no greater
than 5,000 square feet. They aren't shown quite that big, I thought I'd give them a little
bit more flexibility. I think they are in the neighborhood of 3,500 square feet now, I
thought maybe if you have got a user that wanted a little bit more, combine two of these
buildings in one or something, 5,000 still seemed to be a pretty manageable number
and wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, really, in this development anyways. So, the
other DA provisions do require the 20-foot wide land use buffer along the southern
boundary and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along both of the arterial streets, Ustick
and Meridian, as well as a 25 buffer foot wide buffer to the church, because it's zoned
residential. That's according to ordinance. So, I think I touched on pretty much the
main points here. I won't belabor it too much more. I know you saw a similar project
here -- or similar layout here on this site and I will stand for any questions you may
have.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Just one. Caleb, the staff report mentions that some of the dimensions do not
seem to comply with the UDC. Is there anything specific that's a concern or is this just
minor things?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they are pretty minor. If you look right here
there is a little bit of this backup area for this -- this parking stall that does encroach
within that required 20-foot land use buffer, so it needs to be a 20-foot land use buffer,
exclusive of any asphalt. That's the one off the top of my head I can think of. But
nothing too significant or else I would have spelled it out a little bit more clearly. But
that's the one I can think of.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Elg: Sure. Thank you. My name is Van Elg. I'm with The Land Group, 462 East Shore
in Eagle. I'm the planner for The Land Group and representing Mr. Price tonight, who is
the developer. Caleb, do you have that disk, that Powerpoint? Oh, it's already up.
Again, I won't -- as Caleb mentioned, I won't belabor it too much. We have gone over
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 5 of 56
the staff report and find that what Caleb has indicated in this report is in compliance with
what we understood to occur on the project. We don't have any particular issues with
any elements of the staff report. There was a comment that I think Caleb probably had
addressed, but you may have it in your packet. ACHD initially transmitted a report that
was the same report, apparently, from the last time that this was before the Commission
and there has been a slight change in here. So, let me -- as I go through this I will point
out what change that was and why ACHD has now adjusted that report. Again, you
have seen the aerial here, Caleb, so we can flip to the next one there. There is just the
vicinity map again, which Caleb had on his. This drawing right here -- I wanted to show
you some of the initial drawings that you saw last year as from a concept standpoint.
This is the first concept drawing that you saw. You will notice that the access point is
about 220 feet from the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Road, which is in
approximate alignment with Eastbrook Subdivision, which was a point of contention for
some of the neighbors last time. They did not want to see that -- that intersection in
alignment there. In addition, ACHD had some issues with it and it was going to be a
restricted access to right-in, right-out only. And since that time we have come back with
what we believe to be a much better plan. Caleb, you can flip to the next one now.
Again, this is another concept plan that was presented. We didn't feel like this one
really met the intent or was a design that we wanted to proceed with. And the next,
Caleb. When presented last year, Mr. Price identified a number of permitted and
conditional uses in the application and Caleb has indicated in the staff report that
through the development agreement we are being restricted to only those permitted
uses in the L-O zone, that conditional uses won't be allowed. I think the only thing that-
- it looks like the ordinance may have changed a little since the last time we were in,
Caleb. I believe the L-O zone has changed. Some of those things that were conditional
uses at one point are now part of it. The next slide kind of highlights -- condenses those
yellow areas. Oops. No, it doesn't. I think it went to -- one back, maybe. Clicking over
somewhere. Okay. Anyways, if you look at those yellows you can see that there is --
that's a summary of all of the principal permitted uses in the zone. And we completely
agree with what's allowed there. You can see that our intent is to provide professional
office spaces, dental offices, doctor's offices, chiropractic offices, maybe financial
offices, perhaps a day care center, as allowed by the zone, but certainly nothing that will
be intensive in either traffic or pedestrian generation in the site. It will be a fairly low
impact development. Caleb, if we can go to the next -- flip through -- is that the last one
for ACHD? There we go. There is the condensed version. This is the -- yeah. That's
fine. We will use that one right now. Okay. This is what you were lacking last time.
One of the things -- one of the elements that you were lacking was an aerial of the site
and -- I don't mean an aerial, an elevation of the site. And you will probably recognize
this. This is Heritage Commons or a similar type development. Mr. Price fully intends
to have something very compatible to this type of development on that site. Let's go to
that site plan now, Caleb. This is the site plan that we have identified as being what we
believe to be a much superior plan to the ones that were presented last year. You will
notice that, as Caleb mentioned, 315 feet south of the intersection you will find the full
access intersection -- or access point to this site. It's not a right-in, right-out, but a full
access. No longer aligning with Eastbrook Subdivision, but should provide a much
better means of access to the site and reduce some of the transportation -- the trips that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 6 of 56
are generated through that intersection, as you will come directly into the site, instead of
passing through Ustick and Meridian Road. In addition, this site allows -- or this access
point here will deter cut-through traffic from Meridian Road or from Ustick Road through
the church site and back down through. So, you can see you'd have to wind fairly
significantly through that project to get back out. So, it won't be a very convenient cut
through approach. The six buildings that you see there, as Caleb mentioned, vary in
size. I believe there is a total of about 21,000 square foot of commercial space, with
about 3.8 parking spaces per thousand. Certainly that one parking space or turn out --
back out area there on the south boundary is something that we will have to come back
and address and certainly willing to do that. But with that I don't think that there is whole
lot more that we need to cover particularly with this -- with this proposal, other than we
did mention the cross-access easement. That does exit. Mr. Price already has that
agreement in his hands and we will be providing that for the church and possibly
allowing them to park on Sundays within the property as well. We would ask that the
normal hours of operation be consistent with the code. I think it goes from, what, 6:00
to 10:00 is the normal standard hours of operation. And with that I will open myself up
to any questions that you might have.
Rohm: Okay. Any questions of this applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Before you sit down I have a question of staff and, then, possibly you
can respond. Caleb, he had mentioned day care as one of the potential developments.
Is that something that would be accepted in this -- as part of this project?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it is on that list, which looked like the list
out of the UDC. It is principally permitted. I think that is one of the changes that was
made from the old Meridian city code to the new UDC in giving home, if you will, for day
care centers, whereas before they were, basically, a Conditional Use Permit in all types
of -- all different zoning districts and now it is principally permitted in the L-O and I think
there are still several other zoning districts where they would require a C-U. But I can
verify if I had a UDC here and I may try to find a hard copy of one or jump online real
quick and just find you a for sure answer, but I believe --
Rohm: Typically, the day cares require a CU and I just wanted to validate before we
went forward with the assumption that it would be principally permitted.
Hood: Right.
Rohm: And that's fine.
Elg: Mr. Chairman, I checked the UDC directly online, Caleb, and that's where I found
that as well. That -- I wasn't aware of that change myself, so I checked it several times.
Rohm: Well, good. I'm satisfied with that, then. Good. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 7 of 56
Elg: You know, as Caleb mentioned, the day care center is currently existing --
currently at the site at the church and has for a number of years. And they are anxious
to potentially use one of the buildings, so --
Rohm: Good. Okay. Thank you.
Elg: Thank you.
Borup: That is what my book shows.
Rohm: Okay. Good. I just -- I didn't want to move forward without clearing that in my
own mind.
Elg: Yeah. That's why I checked it several times myself, because--
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Previously the City Council had denied that.
Do you feel it was because of the sample buildings or because of the landscaping
layout or -- I mean there is not a lot of difference from what you submitted then and now
and I -- do you feel comfortable that it will be okay at City Council this time?
Elg: Frankly, we do.
Borup: Okay.
Elg: The Council -- I guess could say this. They asked for the additional elevations and
such. The applicant initially wasn't able to be at the meeting -- missed the first part of
the meeting. When he got to the Council meeting through the appeal wasn't able to --
because the meeting had progressed he wasn't able to get the elevations and so they
denied it. So, I think it was just a combination. He didn't have a good concept plan and
he didn't have the elevations that he needed --
Borup: Okay.
Elg: -- and there was a few things like that.
Borup: Thank you.
Elg: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. We do not have anybody else that has signed up to
speak to this application, but if there is anyone who would like to, this is your opportunity
and, please, come forward. And state your name and place of residence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 8 of 56
Vogel: My name is Lester Vogel and we have some water users and there is an
irrigation pipe that comes up on the corner there and will they be leaving that alone and
not planting shrubs or something around it?
Rohm: Typically, the way a development works is any water use that was available to
adjacent properties before development occurs has to be available once the
development is completed, so--
Vogel: They won't be obstructing me?
Rohm: The water will be delivered just as it was prior.
Vogel: But how about bushes and trees over that?
Borup: I think that can -- that ditch is probably outside of their new property line. I think
that's probably within the ACHD right of way, if I'm -- it's pretty close to that.
Vogel: Okay. There won't be anything over it?
Borup: Well, normally, the ditches are required to be covered if it's --
Vogel: Yeah. It's covered, but it's got a clean out there, so it needs --
Borup: Oh, you're talking about a covered ditch, not the open one that's there?
Vogel: No. It's a covered ditch, but there is a plate there where it goes under Meridian
Road and under Ustick Road.
Borup: But along the road it's open, isn't it?
Vogel: No.
Borup: Okay. I'm thinking of a different one.
Vogel: If you have -- if it gets plugged or something you --
Borup: Okay. We can probably -- the applicant can answer that specifically, but --
whether it's on the property, but, no, they were --
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Before we ask the applicant to come back, is there
anybody else that has any question about this particular project? Any other testimony?
Would the applicant like to come back, please.
Elg: What you said is true when we come back with a full development concept plan
that's for final approval, we certainly understand that we can't impede or interrupt or
obstruct any of the flow -- any irrigation flows there. He's correct, there is a covered
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 9 of 56
ditch up there. It is in -- it's the Nampa-Meridian or Settlers irrigation and that the
church was the end user on that, as the applicant explained to me just a moment ago.
And they have seceded their right to -- or at least a portion of the rights to this site here.
So, we will do whatever is necessary to make sure that irrigation water is protected and
preserved in that ditch. It may take some negotiations with ACHD as well and there will
be some coordination as we get that, so we don't obstruct the flow of irrigation.
Moe: So access will be available?
Elg: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just had a question for staff. Caleb, what -- is there an ordinance
that requires them to deliver water or --
Borup: State law.
Newton-Huckabay: -- or state law or -- and not interrupt the water usage?
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, there is a state law for
sure and there may be something in the Public Works section that talks about, you
know, where irrigation water enters your property and exits. You can't mess with those
two points. I don't know of anything in Meridian City Code. I know it's a state law, but
I'm not sure of state code, so I'm going to ask Mike if he --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I just was aware of that legal responsibility by --
Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, there is a state statute that requires
that you deliver water from where it enters your property to where it leaves Your
property when you develop that, that you have to maintain historical flows from where it
enters and deliver it where it exits your property. Meridian City Code doesn't require
that, it requires that you tile any ditches that lie within that property and to comply with
all state statutes. We, in the past, just for a little bit of clarification, and it might help the
member in the audience, in the past we have required downstream user approval prior
to final plat signature. At times that's caused some headaches, because facilities are
already put in, it's costly to redirect them at that time. We since have a new policy
where prior to construction plan approval -- so even if they are doing a construction
without a plat involved, if they are doing just multiple buildings on one lot, as the UDC
allows, they still have to have the construction plans approved, sewer, water, and one of
the -- one of the requirements that we make them is submit written approval from the
downstream users prior to construction plan approval, so it's hatched out before it's in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 10 of 56
the ground. If it's a Settler's or a Nampa irrigation ditch, they have to provide something
from that district. If it's a downstream user, the next property downstream they are the
ones that have to get written permission from those people
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Any further discussion among the Commission on this application? Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-034 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-034 to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.6
acres from RUT (Ada County) to 6 acres of R-4 (Medium Low-Density
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 11 of 56
Residential) and 1.6 acres of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) for Benelli
Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsill - 3420 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 6:
Public Hearing: PP 06-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17
single-family units in the proposed R-4 zone, 8 single family units in the
proposed R-8 zone and 5 common lots on 7.6 acres for Benelli Springs
Subdivision by Rob Godsill- 3420 South Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-033 and PP 06-
041, both related to Benelli Springs Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'd like to begin with a brief
summary of the project and, then, we will move into any specific issues that we may
have. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 7.6 acres located on the
east side of Locust Grove Road approximately 600 feet south of Victory Road. To the
north is the proposed Casa Meridiana development, which has requested an R-15 zone
on the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. To the east are approved single family lots
within the Tuscany Hills Subdivision, kind of to the southeast right here, which have
been constructed. To the south is a single family home on a large parcel, currently
zoned -- it's that triangular parcel right there. Currently zoned RUT in Ada County. And
to the west are single family homes on large parcels here on the corner and portions of
the Tuscany Village Subdivision. With that context, the applicant is requesting two
different residential zoning designations on this property. The requested zoning is R-4,
which is medium low density residential for six acres and R-8, which is medium density
residential, for the remaining 1.6 acres. All of the property is currently zoned RUT in
Ada County and there is currently one single family home on the property that will be
removed from the project. This is just the aerial photograph. It gives a picture of what I
just described, basically, and we will move on to the plat. Along with the annexation
and zoning, the applicant is also requesting a preliminary plat approval of 25 single
family building lots. Seventeen of these lots are located in the proposed R-4 zone in the
southern portion of the property, which is all this area here. And eight lots are located in
the proposed R-8 zone in the northern portion of the property, which is this row of lots
right at the top there. Five common lots are also proposed for the development. With
this number of build-able lots the total gross density for the project is 3.3 units per acre,
which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density
residential, which allows between three and eight units per acre on this site. All of the
proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional standards described in the UDC for the
proposed zones. We will move on to the landscape plan. The applicant's proposing to
set aside .92 acres or approximately 12 percent of the total site area as common usable
open space. Most of that is located -- there is a -- kind of circular park-like feature in the
cul-de-sac there and the applicant's also proposing to extend this multi-use pathway
from Locust Grove connecting towards the Tuscany Subdivision. This -- kind of moving
on to some of the issues. This was one of the main issues that came up as staff
reviewed this application was the location of this proposed pathway. It's -- currently it's
located on the southern side of Ten Mile Creek, which is inconsistent with the Tuscany
Subdivision to the southeast where the path is located on the north side of Ten Mile
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 12 of 56
Creek. Staff has included a condition to relocate this path to the north side of Ten Mile
Creek to remain consistent with Tuscany -- the Tuscany Subdivision to the southeast.
What happens with this path is as it crosses Locust Grove it, then, jumps to the other
side to the south side of Ten Mile Creek, so that's why there may have been some
confusion. But on this side it should remain consistent with what has already been
constructed. One other issue that came up in staffs review was the proposed buffer.
The applicant proposed a 20-foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road, but staff
is recommending that be bumped up to 25 to meet the -- to meet the landscape buffer
standard for an arterial street, which Locust Grove currently in the most recent
Compass map Locust Grove is identified as an arterial and which is consistent because
of the overpass that's going to go in, that's going to be a very heavily traveled road.
Other than those issues, staff is generally supportive of the design and recommends
approval and I stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Justin, do you have a picture with -- the southern piece
of property below this? It seemed like we were leaving rather strange outparcels. Is
there access to that if it redevelops?
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, that outparcel that will be
created -- I think I actually -- it shows better here.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Lucas: This triangular piece -- it's a good question and, yes, the only access it looks like
will be off of Locust Grove Road and I -- there is no stub proposed to the south because
of the Ten Mile Creek that runs through there.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Lucas: But that's kind of the dividing line. So, that outparcel -- and it doesn't look like
there is a stub proposed to that parcel from the Tuscany Subdivision either. So, yes, it
is an odd outparcel that will be left there, though mostly because of the creek feature
that runs through there.
Newton-Huckabay: I know there was another piece of property in north Meridian that
had a similar instance and we -- was at Ten Mile and Ustick and it bumped up against a
creek and did we go ahead and put a stub there anyway? Because it did -- or did that
land lock that piece of property across from Autumn Faire?
Lucas: I'm not familiar with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no, that would have been before your time.
Lucas: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 13 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. I guess my concern is that puts a lot of accesses to
Locust Grove. If there was any way, I would prefer to see some kind of opportunity to
take an access off of Locust Grove with its future as being a main north-south route. I'll
leave that for -- we will let the hearing go on and we can discuss it.
Lucas: Yeah. Staff can consider that and we may bring it up in the future.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Lucas: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions?
Borup: Yes, I do have one for Mr. Cole. Two things. One, any comment on
groundwater concerns? And, then, maybe just for my information, the definition of an
off peak pumping station.
Cole: Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, there are concerns on the groundwater
out here. I contacted the applicant's engineer a week ago when we -- when I started
reviewing this project and said -- the groundwater report that you have submitted shows
some very high groundwater levels. We have a requirement that they sign a stamped --
the professional engineer has to submit a signed, stamped, document stating that there
is three feet of separation between the highest established groundwater through
groundwater monitoring and the center line of the road. I asked him how he thought he
was going to accomplish that and he was unaware of our requirement at that time. I
asked him if he should probably be thinking about it and maybe give us some idea of
how they were planning to do that, fill the site. In the past you remember Bellingham in
the south that was -- had high groundwater, they actually -- it wasn't required, but they
went to all slab on grade construction out there to try to minimize any groundwater in
the crawl spaces. I'm reluctant to place that condition on a development. It's definitely
an option that they could use to try to minimize those concerns that we have. Getting
rid of the storm water on this site is going to be difficult, too, as there is many DEQ
regulations between the height of the groundwater and where you discharge it to. So,
there are some -- there are some engineering issues with this site. I think they can be
overcome. It's going to just take some work, some -- some work, I guess. To your
second point, an off-peak pumping station is a term that we have used for -- you will see
it again tonight in another report. Down here in the south these mains are all planned to
go to the Black Cat shed. The Black Cat shed is not here yet, so they are temporarily
flowing out of shed into lines that weren't actually designed to take this much flow. So,
what happens during peak flows from 6:00 until 9:00 o'clock in the morning, on
weekends when people are doing their laundry, lots of showers being taken, the lines
actually become full and it's a problem. So, one of the ways that we have -- to
temporarily fix this until the Black Cat Trunk comes across is an off-peak pumping
station is what we coined them and what it is it's basically a lift station. It doesn't lift
sewer, it has an oversize wet well, so it actually stores it -- holds it during those peak
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 14 of 56
flows when it's pumping to these over full lines, so that they are not adding to the
problem, and, then, once the peak flow's over and there is more capacity within those
lines, it actually lifts like a lift station, but it just lifts it up high enough to dump it back in
the gravity line and, then, flows down through gravity. It's basically a -- it's a way to hold
and store the in-flow for a couple three hours a day. We have put the condition on three
or four projects now. We have seen just a few designs come in. There, actually, hasn't
been one built yet. We are waiting to see our first one built. We are almost hoping that
we can get the Black Cat trunk across before these actually have to be built.
Borup: Okay.
Cole: I don't know if we are going to make it or not, though. I hope that answered your
question.
Borup: Yes, it does. Thank you.
Rohm: Good. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
McCarthy: Good evening. My name is Kevin McCarthy, I'm with Toothman Orton
Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard. As far as addressing some of the comments
made by staff there, we are pretty much in agreement with everything that they have set
forth as far as just complying with the Comprehensive Plan as far as our zoning
designations go. To address some of my concerns regarding the engineering, he was--
he did make me aware of that three feet of separation issue, which we will, obviously,
comply with. To help in that regard we will be probably proposing slab on grade
construction for the homes that will be proposed out there. The other things that came
up were the pathway that we have currently shown on the south side of the canal. We
were made aware that we'd like to have that on the north side, we don't have any
problem with that. We will move that pathway to the north side, in addition to widening
the buffer from 20 feet from Locust Grove; we will widen that to 25 feet as mentioned.
We don't have any issues with that. Trying think if there is anything else that was made
mention of. I guess if you guys have any questions I'd feel free to answer those.
Rohm: I have none. That's pretty easy. Any questions of this applicant?
Borup: I think you have, essentially, said you agreed with the staff report.
McCarthy: Yeah. We agree with the staff report and the items that they have brought
up. You know, we are going to -- agree that we would address in our discussion with
Justin. One other thing, I guess, would be to the south as far as a connectivity issue,
what was prohibiting us from doing that was the Ten Mile Creek there was crossing that.
That piece, I'm assuming would take access off Locust Grove, ideally, because the
creek, being the barrier, would have been better to take access from the properties to
the south, but it doesn't look like that's possible any longer. I can't tell from that map,
so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 15 of 56
Borup: It's not. It's developed.
McCarthy: Yeah. So, it's our intention not to provide a stub street to the south at this
time.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, does that pretty well answer your questions
about that the outparcel or do you still have some concerns?
Newton-Huckabay: It's not the answer I wanted, but --
Borup: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Thanks very much. There is nobody
signed up to testify to this application, but at this time if someone would like to come
forward and offer testimony this is that time.
Seely: I'm Renee Seely and we own the property south of the development and you
had mentioned landlocked. What concerns should we have about that if we want to
develop this property later on?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. If a property becomes so surrounded by development that they
have no access to a road, then, they are landlocked and you have access and they
wouldn't take it away.
Seely: From Locust Grove. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: But if -- my preference would be if you chose to redevelop that your
development would be accessed through this development and your Locust Grove
access would go away, because it's going to be a very busy road and the less accesses
directly onto Locust Grove there are --
Seely: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: -- then the less traffic hazards. So, that's what -- that's what I would
like to see is some access made available to your property and know that the canal
creates a challenge there, but that's why I'm concerned. Your property will not be
landlocked by this development.
Seely: Right. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair? I might add for this person's information that Ada County Highway
District would be the jurisdiction that would say where you would take access and how
you would take access. So, if you're concerned, I would encourage you to meet with
their staff and certainly nothing that was said here can guarantee access when your
development comes forward.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Good point. Sorry. That's why he's here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 16 of 56
Rohm: That's why he's here. Thanks, Ted. Any other testimony to be taken before we
move forward?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a couple more questions?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: Justin, I had heard -- on Casa Meridiana what did we end up with
on that development? Has it been -- has it made it through City Council?
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that -- the Casa Meridiana
development has not gone through City Council. It has currently been continued for
another month and it is in limbo I guess is the way to say it. I don't know, I don't think I
need to go into the whole background of what's going on with Casa Meridiana, but
ACHD was very happy with the stub street that this development, Benelli Springs, is
proposing to the north and Casa Meridiana will have to comply with that stub street
whenever it does end up going through. And so that's kind of the status of that.
Newton-Huckabay: Now on the -- the original one had access on Locust Grove and
Victory, but the one that actually went to City Council pending has access only to
Victory; is that correct?
Lucas: Yes. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that is correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: What is the size of the ditch that's parallel to this southerly line? Is it a --
Borup: It's big.
Rohm: It's big? So, it's not something that you would put --
Borup: A culvert in?
Rohm: -- a culvert in --
Borup: No.
Rohm: -- and cover it up and be done? Okay.
Borup: It's got a major bridge over it in Tuscany.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 17 of 56
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. I'm not --
Borup: Mr. Chairman? Oh.
Rohm: Go ahead.
Borup: I move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-033 and
PP 06-041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I am kind of curious in regard to the discussions
of on grade slabs. Do you want to --
Borup: Well, maybe that's a good point. Is that something that should be clarified at
this point or is that something the developer has a choice, either three feet -- well,
maybe I was premature in closing that hearing, because last time they came up with
that prior to finalizing the application, didn't they? The other development.
Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they actually at this body did not decide how
they were going to take care of it.
Borup: Okay.
Cole: Slab on grade or not. At the City Council meeting is when -- after they had a
chance to do more ground water monitoring, do some more engineering on the site, is
when they decided that they wanted to go slab on grade.
Borup: Okay. So, that's essentially, the same as here, they said that may be an option
they would look at. I remember it did come up. Did that answer that?
Moe: Yes, it does.
Borup: Okay. Do we have any other concerns before we move on?
Moe: I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: I have many.
Moe: Pardon me?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 18 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: I have many.
Moe: Have you expressed all those?
Newton-Huckabay: I have no further comment.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, to include the staff report. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-006 Request for a Rezone of 6.82 acres from R-8
to R-15 for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction -
south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 06-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48
attached single-family units in the proposed R-15 zone, 20 detached
single-family units in the existing R-8 zone and 5 common lots on a total of
11.05 acres for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty
Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road:
Rohm: Thank you for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on RZ
06-006 and PP 06-033, both related to Cedar Springs townhomes and begin with the
staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Once again, I will begin with a brief
summary and, then, move on to any issues that the staff looked at specifically. The
applicant has applied for rezoning of 6.82 acres from R-8, which is medium low density
residential, to R-15, medium high density residential on this site. The total project area
is 11.05 acres -- 11.05 acres, which includes 4.23 acres already zoned R-8. The site is
located on McMillan Road west of Meridian Road and this area received preliminary plat
approval as Lot 18, Block 13, of the Cedar Springs North Subdivision and the original
preliminary plat noted that this site was to be developed as attached single family units.
And this area received final plat approval as Lot 2, Block 36 of Cedar Springs
Subdivision No.4. And that note that it was previously -- they had received to be
developed as attached single family units is important, because they are proposing
town homes on this site. I'll continue with the context. To the north is the recently
approved 85 lot Cedarcreek Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the east is a future
residential development or Amber Creek Subdivision, which is also zoned R-8. To the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 19 of 56
south there are some future single family homes within the Cedar Springs North
Subdivision. The pads that -- I went out there and took a look. The pads are already
there. They are close to being under construction. And to the west is some future office
uses, which are also partially under construction at this time, which have been approved
under Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Once again, the aerial photograph shows what
I just described in a little bit more detail. And we will move onto the -- to the preliminary
plat. So, along with the annexation, the applicant is also requesting preliminary plat
approval of 68 single family building lots. Forty-eight of these lots are for the
town homes located in the proposed R-15 zone in the northern portion -- northern and
central portion of the property. I can kind of draw a line here of that requested R-15
zone. It kind of goes up and around like that. So, this whole centerpiece is proposed R-
15 and this top portion here is also proposed R-15, which will contain the townhomes.
Let's see here. To the south we have 20 additional lots, which currently have existing
R-8 zoning and they are proposing to maintain that R-8 zoning and build single family
detached homes on that site on those lots. There is also five common lots proposed in
this development and the total gross density is 6.15 units per acre, which, once again, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area, which allows for
between three and eight units per acre. We will move on to the landscape plan. The
applicant is proposing to set aside approximately .67 acres or six percent of the together
site area as common usable open space. The bulk of this open space is located in the
proposed micro pathway that runs through the southwest corner of the property right
here and also there is some common lots, open space lots, in the center portion of the
property that provide open space for this development. Another -- a note for this
property concerning open space is the access that this -- these residents will have many
open space amenities, which currently exist in the Cedar Springs North Subdivision.
They will be part of that subdivision and be able to access many of those same
amenities. We will move on here to -- the applicant has also provided some -- some
concept plans for those town homes and some elevations that would be good to take a
look at, just so we have an idea of what's going to go on the ground there. This is a
concept plan or a site plan of those proposed town homes. As you can see they are
going to have common driveways with four units located on each common driveway
with landscaping. And, then, I'll just bring up the elevations here of these -- of these
townhomes, which will be accessed off of those common driveways. They will have
garages and that this is just an example of some of the building types and elevations
that will be proposed there. I think I have one more. Other than the elevations, which
we just had a chance to look at, the only major issue that staff identified with this project
was some inadequate lot sizes per the -- per the UDC that existed in Lots 13 through
16, which are these lots right here. As I stated earlier, the zoning is R-8 and these lots
did not meet the minimum 5,000 square foot requirement. They were around 4,700.
And tonight it would be nice for the applicant to verify kind of how he's going to deal with
that, whether it be through shared driveways, which would lower the lot size
requirement to 4,000 and, then, they would be in compliance or if he would like to
redesign that area to provide for the 5,000. Other than that issue, staff, in general, is
supportive of this project and recommends approval and I stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August3,2006
Page 20 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Justin, can you go back to the landscape, the colored --
how do the rest of those lots in the center work? I mean are those like flag lot access?
Borup: Same as the corner one.
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that -- this lot -- these -- well, this
group of lots, yes, is an example of all -- of how all of these would work.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, a complete -- the whole center is just like that --
Lucas: This is four units. This would be four more units, four more units, et cetera,
throughout the whole center, all taking access off of these common driveway that are
those flags.
Newton-Huckabay: Got You. Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren
Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant
in this matter. We are in complete agreement with the staff report, so I'm not going to
go over the gory details of the project at this point. I'd just like to give you a little bit of
history and context for the project. I'm sure you read my narrative that was attached
with the application. I think the only commissioner on -- at that time was Commissioner
Borup when Cedar Springs North came through and at that time the concern over
Cedar Springs North was, actually, that the density was too low. I think that project
came in at about three and a half units to the acre, maybe a little bit more, and this area
was designated by the Comprehensive Plan as one of your commercial higher density
nodes -- the neighborhood commercial nodes that are shown on the map and that's how
we got the L-O to the west of us and that's how we designated this portion of the project
as a higher density portion of the project to bump up that density. It was always
anticipated that this was and recognized that was a part of the greater Cedar Springs
North development and, therefore, all our numbers at that time worked as far as the
provision of open space and there is a fair amount of park space within Cedar Springs
North, which is -- which this project is subject to and welcome to use, I guess. They are
part of the same CC&Rs and will be integrated into that previous project, so -- we think
this is a very nice looking project. Whenever you see projects that get up about four
units to the acre I understand there is always concern over density. To my way of
thinking it's not really about the density -- six units to the acre is not that high, but it's all
about design and so what we hope you agree with us here is that we have designed a
project that's really nice with interesting buildings and a layout that really works for the
intent of the developer, which is to market these as lots that are almost maintenance
free. There is very little yard that are included with these and that's by design. These
are intended to be sold to empty nesters and people who don't really want to be taking
care of a yard, but want something more maintenance free. I did have a rendering done
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 21 of 56
along McMillan Road. This would be the elevation facing -- can we go back one?
Yeah. Thank you. Right along here. I didn't want it to look too monotonous and we do
have existing landscaping along there and so you can see that the buildings have good
fenestration and modulation on there that make it a little bit more visually appealing
along that streetscape. That landscaping is also, you know, fairly mature along there
now. We did, as a concession to the development that has gone on around us,
including a project to the east that was approved since this one was approved, we have
tried to buffer that by including detached single family units next to those other detached
single family units, while our attached project is all here and along here. And, then, we
do intend to provide shared driveways on those lots that Justin mentioned that are
below your minimum for this lot. I think that's all the high points on the application. So,
if you had any questions I would be happy to take those now.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Fluke, can you hold your story board back up? Where are the
front doors or the rear? Are those -- all of those buildings attached together?
Fluke: Right. That's -- Commissioner -- or Chairman and Commissioner, we have got --
basically, you have got two building plans, so you have got four units around each
courtyard there, with the front elevations being this --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Fluke: -- and this. And, then, the courtyard elevation would be the garages, these,
which will face each other right here. So, you will be able to drive in, two car garage,
two car garage, two car garage, two car garage. We have front doors here and here
and, then, entries off of here and here for these units on those.
Newton-Huckabay: So, where are the front doors for the back ones on your picture
over here?
Fluke: They are located -- they would be just off of the --
Borup: Right there on that --
Fluke: Yeah. You would come in off the garage on this one. You see how this pops
out. You can't see the door in it there. And the same here.
Borup: The elevation hides it, because the garage is wider -- or the house is wider than
the garage.
Fluke: What you have got is, actually, a pop out there that doesn't show up on the flat
board.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 22 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And how does a person -- how do you get extra parking? Is
there room enough in those little courtyards if you have more than two cars or you
have --
Fluke: Right. Well, there would be each -- each dwelling would, technically, have
enough room for four parking places.
Newton-Huckabay: Two in the garage and two in front of the garage?
Fluke: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great.
Fluke: Plus, those -- that is a public street section out there, 36 feet back to back, so
there will be parking allowed on this public road as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Thank you.
Borup: I just have one minor question. I assume the landscape -- this is intended as
conceptual. I noticed that some of your houses are over the property lines, some units.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Fluke: That was to give you an idea how each one of those individual -- or those four
pods would work.
Borup: Yeah. I understand that courtyard concept, but they are not lined -- they are
over the property line, so -- does that still -- if those -- by the time those are shifted that's
still -- you're okay for your backyard setback?
Fluke: Yeah. We do have setbacks in between the buildings there.
Borup: No. I mean the backyard setbacks.
Fluke: So, when you say rear yard, you mean --
Borup: Right -- yeah. Right there.
Fluke: In there? Yeah. There will be, actually, green space in --
Borup: But that building has to shift to be able to be on -- have the units on the property
lines.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3. 2006
Page 23 of 56
Fluke: I guess I'm not following you.
Borup: Well, here is your property line right here and it's cutting right through that
garage. It needs to adjust up there, so it's --
Fluke: That's where they will be attached. That's our zero setback right there, so there
will be no -- and this is like a planter within the driveway in between the two garages
there. Essentially an above-grade planter.
Borup: So, this line right there is not where they are attached?
Fluke: No. That's correct. That is where they are attached. That's a two car garage
and that's a two car garage.
Borup: But, you have got about a four to six foot offset.
Fluke: Well, that's a drafting error.
Borup: Okay. So, it does shift -- by the time that shifts down you're okay on your
setbacks?
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: All right. That was alii was asking about.
Fluke: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Again, there is nobody else that has signed up to speak to this
application, but at this time it's open to public testimony. Anyone that so chooses may
come forward at this time. Good. Things are going very well. Discussion? Don't have
any additional questions of the applicant or of staff for this application? Seems to be
pretty well laid out.
Borup: I mean the concept is a little bit new. We have had a couple of these courtyard
designs, but I don't know if anything's been built yet in Meridian.
Rohm: I guess my question of staff is on those lots that didn't have the 5,000 square
foot minimum would it take a development agreement to insure that they have a joint
driveway to reduce that requirement down to 4,000?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, maybe we should have the -- it seems like the applicant is
saying that he is going to use shared driveways on those and we do not need to include
that in the development agreement, because it's required as a part of his development.
It won't be allowed without those.
Rohm: Works for me. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 24 of 56
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: You want to close them both?
Moe: Oh. I'm sorry. And PP 06-033.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-006 and
PP 06-033. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Do we need to make a change on 1.1.3? That was the one that talks about the
lot sizes. Would that --
Rohm: I think that --
Newton-Huckabay: Or a common drive.
Borup: No, it doesn't say that. I mean the --
Newton-Huckabay: Mine does. Or common drive shall be used to meet the minimum
UDC requirements for lot size.
Borup: Let me see. Oh, there it is. I'm sorry. I was looking for that at the end.
Moe: I think we are fine.
Borup: Yes.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 25 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Can we --
Rohm: We certainly can. At this time we will take a 15 minute break and reconvene at
about 8:25.
Borup: Or maybe shorter.
Rohm: Let's make it 8:20.
(Recess. )
Item 9:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03
acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road:
Item 10:
Public Hearing: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35
residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north
side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road:
Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 3rd, 2006, and begin with
opening up public hearings AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030 for the sole purpose of continuing
them to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 31st, 2006. Could I get a motion to
that effect?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearings AZ 06-030 and PP
06-030 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 31st, 2006. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 26 of 56
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.38
acres to an R-8 zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development,
LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 06-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20
residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.38 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC - 300 South Locust
Grove Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038 and
begin with the staff report.
Veatch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tonight we are looking at
Bellabrook Subdivision. The applicant JE Development, Inc., has applied for
annexation and zoning of an RUT parcel in Ada County to R-8. The site is 4.38 acres.
And they would also like to submit for a preliminary plat of 20 single residential lots, with
five common lots. The subject subdivision is located on Locust Grove Road just south
of Franklin and as you can see in the area there is quite a mix of uses. We have some
commercial here, which, actually, is an LDS church site. We have some county with R-
1 and some other R-1 parcels over here. A little light office and commercial and, then,
we also have an R-4, which is the Woodbridge Subdivision. As well I think this RUT
parcel comes down for both those pieces there. One thing that the applicant did want
me to note -- and I guess after we get through this we will see. We do have the Ten
Mile Creek that runs along here and this site has provided quite a lot of open space. I
think total open space for the site is 24 percent, 18.3, which is usable. Quite a lot of that
is this area up here, which is in the flood plane. There is existing fencing from the
church that runs along this section here to approximately midway down and, then, for
the southern property here there is fencing that runs to about here. So, normally, we
would not have fencing around that common area. The applicant will not be putting
fencing in addition around the rest of that common area, but they wanted us to know
that there is an existing for other property owners that's there. Most of these lots are
going to be with common driveways. The applicant has also submitted a letter for
changes that we have spoken with the fire department to confirm this and that is that
normally there is condition whereby there has to be a certain turning radius for common
driveways for the fire services, but fire services would be able to park on the road and
be able to get within 150 feet of the furthermost corner of each of these homes and so,
therefore, even though they are beginning with it, the driveway is 20 feet, it narrows to
12 and so that 3.7 condition under the fire department we will go ahead and -- with your
permission we'd like to strike that, since they can reach to the back of the houses from
the street level. Let's see. So, they are asking for an R-8 zone with this site. They will
be providing access to Locust Grove here. There will be a right of way with the Torino
Avenue that comes down to here, at which point when this parcel develops, then, they
can connect to that. And I think if you have any further questions I will be happy to
answer those for you.
Rohm: Any questions of staff at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 27 of 56
Borup: Just which is the -- do we have two different plats?
Veatch: As far as like a revision?
Borup: Well, the one I have is different than that one.
Veatch: How many site does it show?
Borup: Same amount of sites, just the stub street's in a different location.
Veatch: I don't believe so. We had a revised --
Borup: This is the latest version?
Veatch: The latest would be of July 20th of 2006, which Mr. Erickson is very good
about forwarding current plats, so I believe the one that we have on the screen is the
most current. Oh.
Borup: I don't think we got a copy of that.
Veatch: I'm sorry. Mr. Cole is saying that that probably is an older version and the one
that you have is the most current.
Borup: Okay. That's what I wondering. Thank you.
Rohm: Well, if not, the applicant will certainly be able to clear that up. Any other
questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come forward? Would the applicant
like to come forward?
Erickson: Good evening. Ross Erickson, 1854 East Lanark Street here in Meridian.
Thanks for the good staff report, Jenny. We, actually, massaged this plat around as we
developed it, working with city staff and ACHD, and just to clarify, this is an old copy of
the plat. As a result of some coordination with ACHD we decided to dedicate the right
of way for Torino all the way to the east property line to offer some flexibility to the
adjacent property owner for when they come in to develop, they will, basically, be able
to locate that stub street along that property line, because their right of way will be all
the way to the east. So, they can come in and actually connect to Torino at whatever
desirable location they can work out with the city and ACHD in the future. We don't
really have a lot of outstanding issues with this project, so I'm not going to go through a
whole bunch of things, but I'd like to hit just a couple of the high points. The project
does offer a lot of open space. We have got about 20 -- just under 23 percent of green
space in the project and of that about 18.3 percent is actually usable. A lot of that is the
flag or the easterly portion of the site. It just was kind of a natural fit with the flood plane
for Five Mile Creek running through there, rather than try to go in there and move a lot
of dirt around and alter the existing condition. Our plan is to go in and just do some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August3,2006
Page 28 of 56
minor grading, possibly place some top soil and put some trees and irrigation. We will
do a portion of -- a very short portion of the multi-use pathway along Five Creek that
runs north and south on the project and, then, provide a micropath connection from that
back up into our project so people will be able to access that in the future when it does
connect through along the -- I guess there are many portions of Five Mile Creek. The
common driveway is actually a pretty unique feature to the project. Our vision was to
create a really nice streetscape for the project and not have a lot of driveways or a lot of
concrete out front and, rather, have some nice building elevations that -- I brought some
copies that I could hand out to you. I don't think they were included in the staff report.
You can see that with the project built out you're mainly going to see our architectural
features of the design of the homes, rather than garages and the concrete, and that's
one of the things that we think will really be an attractive feature about this project. The
street section for the public roads within the project is a 34 foot width that does provide
for parking on both sides, so there will be overflow parking that's available for guests or
whoever, you know, would need that. I guess with that I will stand for any questions. I
don't really have a lot of other items, I guess, other than Jenny had mentioned the
condition of the fire department that we would like to amend. We wrote a letter that you
should have in your report that kind of explains the reasoning why we want that change.
So, I guess with that we will just ask for your approval tonight and stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Erickson, how -- on your -- the front part of the flag that's green
space, I can't really tell by looking at your map, but what is that going to look like?
Erickson: Right here?
Newton-Huckabay: The front plane I think is what messes me up here.
Erickson: Are you looking right here?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just that whole front section of that. There is not actually
houses -- right there.
Erickson: This here is a building lot.
Newton-Huckabay: That is a building lot.
Erickson: It is a building lot and it is a 20-foot strip from the north line of that building lot
to the north property line and within that strip we are going to build a micropath and
landscaping and this landscaping, actually, continues out along East Kalispell Street to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 29 of 56
the west. So, it will kind of -- from this corner here you have kind of a flared out
micropath that, you know, people can just kind of walk down, go do their thing.
Newton-Huckabay: How many -- one house goes on that lot?
Erickson: Yeah. It's a really unique lot. It's just the topography out there. I don't know
if you can tell from the contours, but it's got a lot of relief and it has a really nice view
looking this direction at the Boise front, Bogus, and it overlooks a lot of this flood plane
land here. So, it kind of made sense to make that lot a little bit larger, just because I
think it's a lot more desirable lot and you can put a pretty cool house on it.
Newton-Huckabay: It just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the development to me.
Oh, it's 12,000 square feet.
Erickson: A lot of this lot--
Newton-Huckabay: You can't do anything with it?
Erickson: -- isn't actually build-able.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, you can't do anything with it?
Erickson: Yeah. A lot of it will be partially backyard. It sort of depends on what sort of
an architectural plan is designed for it, but you can see it drops off really quick here.
Some of this will be feathered out a little bit, but it's likely that the home will actually sit
right here on a similar footprint to what these lots have here.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the path was 20 feet you said? Or that distance 20 feet?
Erickson: Yeah. There is a 20 foot strip right here with a micropath connecting it.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: Are these homes in a project in the valley? Are they --
Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup. Yes, they are. They are in a
development called Winding Creek down in Eagle and it's a similar concept where they
have shared driveway. Their lots are a little bit narrower than ours, but the concept for
the driveway and things is very similar.
Borup: Thank you. That's alii have.
Newton-Huckabay: This development doesn't have street trees, though, does it?
Erickson: Actually, there are no street trees, just the 25-foot landscape buffer and, then,
the trees back there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 30 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Would Rod Cullip like to come forward, please.
Cullip: Mr. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission. My concern is --
Baird: Name and --
Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. Excuse me. I live adjacent to the north
on Five Mile Creek. And it is Five Mile, not Ten Mile. And it does run right up -- excuse
me. I will show you here. Right here on this property here. And my concern is -- you
talked about not having any fence on this area and we do have livestock, horses, cattle,
everything in here. My concern is kids getting over into this area here and all around
the rest of it -- right here where the church is it's all white vinyl fence that they put up
around that. Over here at Osborns he's putting white vinyl fence around his property
there. Also, over here on Marshall he's got it fenced on this section here. So, my
concern is kids getting into where the livestock is. Okay.
Borup: Excuse me, sir. What contains the livestock that's there now, then?
Cullip: It's just a barbed wire fence --
Borup: Okay.
Cullip: -- is all it is. On that where it abuts to him to that section.
Borup: Okay.
Cullip: And, of course, you have got the creek with the culvert there, too. And I'm not
sure -- that culvert was put in and it doesn't really handle the water flow that goes
through that and that floods around that culvert and it's washed it out a number of times.
So, that might be something you want to consider, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Cullip: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Rod is the only one that signed up, but would anybody else like to come forward
and testify on this application?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions of staff if I might. In reviewing this
project I guess a couple things came to mind. Number one, as far as the Comp Plan,
you know, that it's, basically, designated as a mixed use community in that area and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 31 of 56
Veatch: Yes, it is.
Moe: I'm just kind of curious. I mean we are within the designation of mixed use
community it seems like we are putting all our eggs in one basket with an R-8 design on
the thing and the other thing I'm a little bit concerned about is -- quite frankly, I'm very
surprised that we don't have other testimony tonight for the simple fact that Woodbridge
being an R-4 designation to the south and this being basically right above it, I'm
surprised that no one's here commenting on that tonight as well and, basically, this
development here is really showing no transition whatsoever between an R-4 into this
property. And I'm just kind of curious as far as on the mixed use community no
problems with staff with that?
Veatch: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, I think the thought was that since it is
mixed use with some of the other properties here being commercial, light industry, and
that they might redevelop some of these outlying parcels and that there were other R-8
in the vicinity, that it would work, basically. And because of the amount of open space,
too, I realize that the transition is up here at the top to these parcels and not down
below by Woodbridge, but we haven't received any letters and I know that a
neighborhood meeting and postings were done, so --
Moe: They were done. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Moe, I think another reason might be the section of Woodbridge
that's to the west, the lots aren't much larger. There was conditional use and it was a
planned development, so a number of those lots were quite small.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? And seeing none, would
the applicant like to come forward?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just -- I'm not understanding the fence question. Where
is there fence, where isn't there fence --
Veatch: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: -- around the flag and -- perfect.
Erickson: Again, Ross Erickson. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I
can clarify. It sounds like I should have done that the first time on the fencing, but the
existing fencing that staff mentioned when they first presented the project -- I'll just kind
of run through that first. There is six foot closed vision white vinyl fence that is right
along their property line to about right here and there is a -- the same fence, actually, is
just right along this lot to about that point here. We will be providing fencing with this
project. The reason why this was even an issue is I just wanted to bring it to staffs
attention that a portion of this common lot has a six foot closed vision fence on it that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 32 of 56
not on our property. The way the code reads you have to provide either a four foot -- I
think it's -- is it a six or a four foot open vision fence or a four foot closed vision fence. I
just wanted to bring that to their attention. We will be constructing fencing around the
entire boundary of the project. This common lot likely will have a four foot open vision
fence around the entire boundary of it and, then, match it with the existing fence right
here and right up here at the LDS church site.
Newton-Huckabay: So, it's going to be like a metal -- or like an iron -- wrought iron or --
Erickson: That's an option. We could use the wrought iron fencing or even like a rail
fence or something that -- whatever, I guess, we decide to put in that would fit and look
nice for the project. There is -- this fencing up here is white vinyl, so I kind of think I'd
like to carry that through with something that would be allowed for a common lot
fencing, you know, on the boundary. So, it will probably end up being like a white -- like
a rail fence or open vision fence.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess my thought is that a rail fence wouldn't discourage people
from crossing over, but, you're right, it may not look good to have anything else, so --
Erickson: That's kind of what we are up against. You know, I guess we can look at a lot
of different fencing types and we'd just like something that would look nice for the
project.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and the open vision fencing in like Heritage Commons -- but
that's wrought iron and black and cedar, but I think that looks very very nice. Something
like that I think would look nice there, if you --
Veatch: Commissioner Rohm -- excuse me -" Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, I think staff's concern was because this is a flood way that that fencing would
restrict that area. I know that the director -- we have looked into the code with that and
also being a common open space, we do normally around the common space require a
shorter fence, like the four foot or to have an open vision fence, you know, we realize
we normally would have someone fence the entire perimeter of the subdivision, but --
and I think maybe Caleb wanted to add --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm not asking them to put a solid fence all the way around it, I just -
- a spit rail vinyl fence is going to be nothing but just visually appealing. I don't know
that it's going to be a deterrent, but I don't know that the option -- I agree that it does
need to be open, especially that long of a common space, it needs to have open vision
for safety purposes, so -- I'll end my comments.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Ross, my question -- and I haven't
walked back there. I have driven down Locust Grove. I haven't walked back there.
How do you set posts in the floodway, then? I mean is it -- that's where I'm failing to
see how that fence goes all the way through and you have got a micropath shown
through the floodway and is there not water, you know, running through the floodway? I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August3,2006
Page 33 of 56
mean the five mile creek I think as being a creek that has water in it sometime of the
year.
Erickson: Yeah. Let me answer your question. Yes, it does. In fact, right now there is
flows -- you know, Five Mile Creek flows from ground springs, from irrigation return,
from storm water, from a number of different sources, and there is a mapped flood
plane through here. Currently the actual flows for Five Mile Creek are contained within
just the channel and there is still some freeboard on that. I think just the tributary area
of Five Mile Creek alone is fairly large and that's why you're seeing a flood plane that's
mapped like this. And, then, also the banks are pretty flat as it comes off of the flow line
of the -- of the actual drain. You know, as far as setting fence posts, you would set
them the way you would typically set a fence post. I don't think, you know, the flood
proofing measures for fence posts, I don't think there is really are any. I guess you
could imbed the post hole deeper and maybe reinforce them, so that, you know, if there
are fast moving waters coming through that it would knock the fence over, but I think if
you're going to get an enormous flood coming through there, like a 500 year flood, it's
probably going to blow anything over, you know, if you get some big -- some big flows
coming through there, so --
Hood: Yeah. I was just wondering if there are any provisions for that. You know, as
the testimony was stated earlier, that culvert gets breached and you got water going
around. Are you just looking at a maintenance headache for the homeowners
association in the future if the fence goes down every year or -- I mean I see them
wanting to keep people kind of contained within this common area, but at the same time
you have got almost that far end of the common area that isn't really accessible in the
first place to the homeowners -- I mean they have got to walk across this culvert to get
there and, then, there is not much there anyway. So, I'm wondering if it -- maybe it just
makes more sense to even fence off, you know, on this side, the west side of the culvert
or something and -- I don't know.
Erickson: For the pathway connection we kind of need to get across and I think, you
know, this development alone will kind of bridge a piece between Woodbridge when
their pathway connects and this will probably ultimately connect out to Franklin Road
would be my guess. I think it's important that we put it in there. As far as that culvert
and the breaching, I spoke with the property owner and I asked him have you seen
flooding out there and he's like, well, we haven't seen it in years. So, you know, as far
as the frequency of major floods that would cause a lot of maintenance -- I guess
requirements, it's probably pretty minimal. I think, you know, throughout the years you
probably -- I'm sure you will see some, you know, if you did get a big flood you would
have to go out and clean things up if it damaged a fence or something for sure, but I
think that the frequency and the amount of maintenance required would be pretty
minimal.
Borup: We don't have major floods here, but you had mentioned the culvert again and it
sounds like there is a concern there. Is that undersized? They are talking about -- I
mean is there plans to put a larger culvert in there, then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 34 of 56
Erickson: At this time we don't have plans to enlarge the culvert. It's already in place,
it's got some nice -- it looks like someone built up some like nice rock around it for the
head wall, but the inlet and the outlet kind of actually supported the bank a little bit
around it, too.
Borup: Do you know what the size is? I mean what size it is where it goes under
Franklin? Are they both the same size?
Erickson: I believe that Franklin it's actually a bridge. I don't think it's --
Borup: Okay. Yeah. That's right.
Erickson: I'd just answer your question if we were to try to accommodate the flood
water that came through there, you would be building a bridge with probably, you know,
a 20 foot span or something to get across there and I think it's just not -- not too realistic
for a pedestrian footbridge to, you know, to go --
Borup: Well, I agree with that for flood water. I guess I had the -- I thought -- I took out
of the other testimony that it wasn't -- it wasn't during flood time, it was during heavy
irrigation or something that was doing that. Now, maybe I misunderstood. The
chairman's going to have to --
Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead and come up just to help clarify the--
Cullip: The culvert's probably --
Newton-Huckabay: You need to state your name again.
Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman or
Commissioners. It's about a three and a half foot culvert that he had put in there and --
Borup: That's big.
Cullip: Yeah. And the water -- you know, the creek is six foot wide and when you have
a wet spring with snow, when it melts off, the creek fills up and what happens there is
more water in the creek than can go through that culvert, so it goes around the culvert
and that's why he put concrete around all that and the concrete was to keep from
washing the bank away, so now what it does is it overflows and goes around the culvert
and back in the water. But the problem is it's washed our area out, so I ended up
putting railroad ties there to keep from washing the whole bank out and everything when
it happens. So, that was my concern and yours, too.
Borup: So, how otten has it done that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 35 of 56
Cullip: Not very often. Every 15 years, probably, you will have a bad water -- you know,
melt off with snow and heavy rain.
Borup: Back in the days when we used to have snow.
Cullip: Absolutely. Back when we used to have it the way it was. But it doesn't really
overflow the banks, it is in the creek, but the culvert is too small to handle what comes
through the creek.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: That answered my question. It sounds like it's just during times of flood, a melt
off.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Erickson: Thanks.
Rohm: Discussion?
Borup: No. I don't know, I think they have off -- I mean, obviously, it's kind of a difficult
site, an odd shaped piece, so I think they have done a good design to accommodate the
site they have had.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you have additional thoughts?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. I think it's a nice -- I really like the elevations and I think it
will be very nice when it comes together, actually, but just the flag piece -- I hate it when
we have these odd-shaped parcels come through that it would have been nicer to have
the other property to the east, but I know -- as we are witnessing tonight, I don't get
what I want every time, so--
Rohm: Well, I think just when you're looking at the flat on a piece of paper it looks like
it's a potential for a different type of lot to that area. It looks like it, but when you get out
there on site and you see the elevation changes, it's just not feasible and I think that
that's the reality of the situation.
Newton-Huckabay: No. I understand. I'm familiar with that area, but --
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Newton-Huckabay: -- I'm happy with it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3,2006
Page 36 of 56
Moe: I really don't have much more. As I said earlier, I'm a little bit concerned about
this property within the mixed use community and whatnot. I do like the elevations that
were submitted. I'll leave it at that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-040
and PP 06-038 for Bellabrook Subdivision.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-040 and
PP 06-038. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, we had no changes to the staff report.
Rohm: There was one. I think --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the fire department.
Rohm: To delete 3.7.
Newton-Huckabay: Just delete it altogether?
Rohm: I believe so.
Veatch: That's correct, Commissioner, Chairman Rohm.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to reference the -- Jenny, the letter?
Veatch: No, I don't believe so.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Veatch: I mean we noted it within the discussion and I think if you go ahead and make
it part of your motion to delete that condition 3.7 that would be okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-040
and PP 06-038 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006,
with the following modification. That condition -- fire department condition 3.7 be
deleted from the staff report. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 37 of 56
Borup: Second.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038, both relating to Bellabrook Subdivision. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for
coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.94
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by
Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 06-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27
single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 10.94 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. -
east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036 and PP 06-
039, both related to Bitterbrush Point Subdivision and begin with the staff report. And
welcome one of our new staff members here.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject application
before you is the Bitterbrush Point Subdivision. The applicant has requested
annexation and zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT Ada County to R-4 medium low density
residential and as well as preliminary plat approval for 27 single family residential lots
and four common lots. As you can see, Bitterbrush Point is generally located north of
Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land.
To the east there is the existing Observation Point Subdivision and zoned R-4. To the
north a platted Ada County subdivision right here. And south of the Kennedy Lateral
right here is the Mussell Corner commercial subdivision. As previously stated, the
applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 27 residential lots ranging between
9,600 square feet and 25,250 square feet. There is stub street connection provided by
Observation Point that will serve as the sole access to the proposed development and if
you can see down here residents will enter Observation Point and head up along east
Observation Drive and, then, access South Andros Way and, then, get into Logger Pass
Street right there. The applicant has provided 7.4 percent of the property as open
space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the proposed common
area is provided along the Kennedy Lateral, which is tiled, to serve as a multi-purpose
pathway. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are, first, the
lack of the perimeter fencing plan. There is currently existing fencing running the length
of the north and eastern boundary. However, the applicant has not indicated whether
permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary. And the
applicant will need to state this tonight. Additionally, the applicant proposes four foot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 38 of 56
solid fencing along the micropath and this is acceptable and meets the requirements of
the UDC. Just to clarify for the applicant, six foot solid fencing is permitted along all rear
and side property lines, not adjacent to common areas and micropaths. The code
would limit fencing in those instances to four foot if solid or six foot if open vision. And,
lastly, ACHD has recently provided comment that the 34-foot wide street section as
proposed for Observation Drive and Lake Creek Street, which are the ones that run
northwest and, then, east-west up there. They are acceptable and the Commissioner
can refer to the memo that should have been provided to you prior to the hearing for
more information on that. They had only mentioned the 36-foot wide street section in
their site specific requirement from Exhibit B and also the proposed design of the cul-
de-sac do not meet the fire department's turning radius requirements and the applicant
will be required to redesign them prior to submittal of the final plat. And that is all staff
has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Very nice. Mike, did you have something you wanted to add?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, yes. I don't know if you guys got the memo I sent out after the
staff report was sent out. I had had a meeting with the applicant's engineer on design of
the off peek storage facility. He's got a rather ingenious design that doesn't involve
pumps that we are kind of excited about. Very forward thinking. We just would ask that
if you do recommend approval of this subdivision tonight that you would strike condition
2.2 as written in the staff report and reference 2.2 as written in the memo provided to
you. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come
forward? Apparently not. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Beck: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Richard Beck, 148
North 2nd Street, Eagle, Idaho. We are pleased to be able to bring this piece into the
city. We feel we have come up with a land plan and use that is compatible with the
surrounding uses and takes into consideration some of the site constraints that are
associated with the site. I guess I will start out with the fencing, to comment on fencing,
since we did not include the perimeter fencing plan or what we will do on the landscape
plan. We will start with addressing that. We will be looking at, again, an open vision
type fence with vinyl materials on the perimeter, especially along the landscape buffer
area adjacent to the Kennedy Lateral and that will be -- we will show that on the fencing
plan when we submit the final -- with the final plat. And we -- as you can see the site is
-- does have one thing to take into consideration with the design is the access, the
current -- the frontage on the site is just from Loggers Pass currently. However, access
has historically been taken from Meridian Road to the northwest there. And, initially,
with, I guess, design in mind, due to the commercial -- the commercial zoning
designation there were thoughts of looking at potentially a higher density, but we felt
that the R-4 and 9,500 plus foot lot sizes would establish more compatible functional
land design that would be compatible with the Observation Point Subdivision, fill it. It
does comply with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. And we do want
to make sure that the staff report condition -- see if I can find it here. We appreciate
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 39 of 56
Amanda bringing up the memo from the Ada County Highway District. Do you want to
make sure that the condition -- I believe 1.2.5 is -- reflects that memo and shows a 34 to
36 foot street section. Other than that, we agree with the staff report and I'll stand for
any questions.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Beck, I may have missed it. I know you went with open vision on the
Kennedy Lateral. What are you doing with the rest of the perimeter?
Beck: It would the same all around the perimeter. We would have the open -- open
vision vinyl fence.
Newton-Huckabay: What is the fencing on the east? Is that just vinyl?
Beck: I believe it is vinyl.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Why is it you don't want to put a solid fence around the
property or the development?
Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I believe one of the objectives with the open vision
fence is to keep the open feel and to preserve some of the views from the property of
some of the surrounding maintain ranges. I don't know that the developer -- I believe
the developer would be amenable to putting in solid fencing.
Newton-Huckabay: I mean isn't that a nursery right south of it there on the west side of
the -- of the nursery --
Beck: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: -- Victory Greens? Victory Greens, yeah.
Borup: But you have got the canal right there, too.
Newton;.Huckabay: Uh-huh. What's on the -- what's the fencing around Victory Greens
there? Is there any? I have not been that far back on the property.
Borup: I doubt it.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I do, too. Do you know?
Beck: I don't know.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no more comments.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 40 of 56
Rohm: Staff had mentioned something about your cul-de-sacs and the turning
radiuses, them not being conducive. Could you speak to that a little bit?
Beck: Yeah. Not -- Mr. Chairman, I'm not one hundred percent familiar with the design
standards. I know that we did discuss that with our engineer and he did say that they
would be -- they would meet the requirements, that it would comply with the condition.
Rohm: So, just before final plat, the cul-de-sacs will be modified to accommodate for --
to respond to those comments?
Beck: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: It looks like you need to increase it from 45 to 48 on the radius.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? One of the things that I'll just
say before you sit down is that there is additional public testimony and as they speak it's
always a good idea to take notes, so you will be able to respond to any questions that
come up.
Beck: Thank you.
Rohm: And thank you. Okay. At this time would Steve Yeager like to step forward.
You're okay? From the audience he says he didn't need to speak. Okay. Jeff Johnson.
Okay. B.J. Allen? Alloway.
Alloway: I'm B.J. Alloway. 324 East Loggers Pass. Obviously, being on Loggers Pass,
the stub street that's going to connect to this proposed --
Rohm: Could you bring the microphone down to you? There you go. Thank you.
Alloway: Can you hear me now? I have several concerns with having this new
subdivision being their -- their entrance being Loggers Pass. Obviously, during
construction everything is going to be coming right directly in front of my house back
and forth. There will be a lot of mess, mud, dust, you name it. I'm not trying to stop this
subdivision, but I don't know what other entrances have been explored for this
subdivision or because it has a nub street there that they just automatically looked at
that and thought, okay, that will be the easy way to be an entrance, less cost effective
for the subdivision. Currently there is access from Meridian Road to that subdivision
and I ask that if they don't explore another avenue for at least, you know, entrance to
that subdivision, that they at least use the existing road in from Meridian Road for --
during construction, so that all the construction vehicles, heavy equipment, et cetera,
bypass our subdivision and that route be used. At least taken into consideration.
Basically, that's pretty much it. So, thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 41 of 56
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: Makes sense.
Rohm: Christine Helk.
Helk: Christine Helk. 432 East Forest Ridge Drive, Meridian. I live right off of Andros
and Forest Ridge that kind of go like this. I'd like to know how much more traffic this is
going to bring in to -- that Andros is going to become now a major road there, how much
more traffic we are going to have coming, you know, in there. That's one issue I have.
Because we have a lot of cut-through traffic right now. And, then, with the south 548
home subdivision from far east -- I can't say it. It's like Banana, Tanana or whatever.
You know which one I mean. None of us could say it. But that's coming in. They are
going to be cutting through there, too. So, here is another one that's going to be cutting
through and running down Andros Way and I just really have concerns for that, for --
there is no stop signs on that and people speed on it now and I don't know if there is
any way that Lake Drive -- could they do something on the site there and have like
maybe two streets coming out into the stub, kind of where that Lake Drive comes in
there somehow? Or I guess there is a house there. I don't know. I just don't like
having only one way to come in and out and all that traffic going right next to my house,
because it really is a mess and that and, then, I agree with her on the builders, if they
could find another way to get in and out of there, at least until it's pretty much done, you
know, because there really is a lot of trash that's thrown around and it's really a mess
and if they could find another way I would appreciate that, too, and that's it. I'm sorry.
Rohm: No. Good. Thank you very much. Okay. There are no others signed up to
speak, but it's certainly open to -- would you like to come forward, sir?
Hart: My name is Mike Hart. 2961 South Andros Way. I just want to echo some of
what my neighbors have already said. South Andros Way currently we get a lot of cut-
through traffic. People do not want to wait at Meridian and Victory Road. So, you can
cut through there and get over to Overland or you can cut through Meridian and take
Calderwood out onto Meridian. And so we get the traffic coming both ways. And by
putting that subdivision in there with only one entrance and exit, it's only going to
compound that. Currently all the buses that take the children, both high school,
elementary, junior high, stop on South Andros Way and unload those kids. That's a
very steep hill, it's blind, you cannot see what's coming from either side of that. We
have already had an incident where a young -- a little girl in the neighborhood that was
almost run over on her bike, because I have witnessed cars racing up that hill parallel to
one another trying to beat each other up to the peak on both sides. We have already
had the police out several times. We have tried to get surveys to get some kind of
traffic control in there. Right now there is no way to slow it down, there is no signs, no
nothing. And it's an accident waiting to happen at the moment the way those people
drive through there. By putting not only the subdivision across, which is high density
and, then, that one, you're going to probably see another five to six hundred cars
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 42 of 56
coming through there easy. And right now it's extremely dangerous. That was my only
pOint. The other one would be I am concerned with all the construction coming in and
out of there. Loggers Pass is not a very long street, as you can tell from your plat, it's
only about 50 feet long, and it won't take much to clog up that -- that road at 7:00 in the
morning when the earth movers come in, cement trucks and else. Kids are trying to get
on the bus and off the bus, we are going to have a real problem there and it's going to
happen once or -- not soon, but it's going to happen if we don't slow it down. So, all that
is the only way you can get in and out of that subdivision. I know there is a proposal to
go the other way to the north, but that -- currently that land is private, they are not going
to sell it. There is no way to get there. So, that's my concern. I know development
happens in the valley. That's just part of the nature of the business. But if there is
some way we can try to control what is occurring on that property, just for the safety
issue, then, those children -- they ride their bikes up and down that hill, they like to -- on
their skateboards and everything else and, like I said, that hill is blind, you cannot see
anybody on either side of that. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Hart, just --
Rohm: Mr. Hart.
Borup: Just so --
Hart: Commissioner.
Borup: I was trying to understand some -- a couple things you said, but one -- it sounds
like you were saying you felt there would be less cut-through traffic if there was access
to Meridian Road?
Hart: Yes.
Borup: You don't think people would cut through here to get to Meridian Road.
mean --
Hart: Cut through -- they are already cutting through.
Borup: But they have got to go clear up to Overland now or down Calderwood.
Hart: Oh, yeah, but at 8:00 o'clock in the morning or 5:00 in the afternoon traffic on
Victory backs up almost to our entryway.
Borup: So, you feel that if this went through here you would have less traffic on
Andros?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 43 of 56
Hart: Yeah. At least for that subdivision. They have another way to get to where they
are going without going through either Meridian Greens or us. Now, I can't --
Borup: But how about all the traffic coming down that wants to cut through?
Hart: Well, that's another issue that we have been trying to address.
Borup: Right.
Hart: With that development across the street and --
Borup: Well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by cut through. I wasn't
considering this as cut-through traffic. It would be the same as if this subdivision, when
it was put in, included those lots to start with.
Hart: And I agree with you. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying we are going to
just build on a problem that already exists.
Borup: Yeah. It's a busy intersection already.
Hart: Yeah. And it's not a very long street, so it won't take much to pile it up.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would you like to come forward, ma'am?
J. Hart: My name is Judy Hart. I live at 2961 South Andros. My backyard is going to
be the entrance to this subdivision. I think it's a great subdivision, I'm very happy with
the amount of homes. The problem I have is is that usually the subdivisions have nice
entryways. There is not going to be one. It's just right there in my backyard. As you
can see, then, they start their houses. So, I would like to know how you get away
without having some type of entry, whether there is -- how is there going to be a sign so
people know that that is the Bitterbrush thing -- so I'm concerned about that, too. Also,
you know, there is right there off of Meridian Road they have that -- the nursery has that
area where they sell all the rocks and everything, there is an access road there that --
like Mrs. Alloway said, that they come and use for construction, instead of bringing all
that through onto South Andros Way. So, I'd like to address another -- I just find it very
odd that you go through a subdivision to get into another subdivision, that you have their
entrance right in another subdivision. I thought that was, you know, kind of an odd
thing.
Borup: But that's one of the purposes of this stub street that's already in existence.
That was intended that that would be developed in the future and have more lots over
there. That's why that was designed that way to start with. That's a requirement of
ACHD.
J. Hart: Well, then, how -- well, that's fine. But I was wondering how do you designate
that subdivision? What's their entrance --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August3,2006
Page 44 of 56
Borup: What's the entrance between Meridian Greens and Observation Point now?
J. Hart: Oh, good point. There is homes.
Borup: I mean is there a subdivision designation there?
J. Hart: No. You're correct on that.
Borup: Okay. So, it would be the same thing, I guess.
J. Hart: But it's not the main entrance.
Borup: Right.
J. Hart: Observation Point has their main entrance on Victory and Meridian Greens has
theirs on Overland. So, it's just a street that goes through. But these people, you know
Borup: They may want to put something. Sometimes I have seen small signs.
Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Hart?
Borup: That would be up to the developer.
Newton-Huckabay: In the Cedar Springs development and Sienna Creek, they have
done that, they kind of flow together seamlessly and they have made an attempt to
make some kind of entrance so you know you are going into -- it's Sienna Creek; right?
Is it Sienna? Okay. That actually looks more awkward, in my opinion, than if they
would have just made it look like it was a part of Cedar Springs, because you have --
you're driving along through the subdivision and, then, you hit the subdivision sign and
just a bit of landscaping trying to designate it and think you might get more -- I think that
can backfire on you. I think it might look better in my mind if it just looks like a part of
Observation Point.
J. Hart: Well, that's what we wondered when we first heard about the proposal. It's a
great proposal. One thing we wondered, why couldn't it just be part of Observation
Point, instead of having to be a whole different subdivision?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I can't speak to that, but--
Borup: Observation Point's already a platted subdivision that's already done with. It's
got to be a new subdivision.
J. Hart: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 45 of 56
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this?
Rosette: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Jim Rosette, Meridian Greens
Subdivision, 2316 South Montego Way. And I have been to the Commissioners'
meeting more than once on some of the other subdivisions that are going in around
Meridian Greens. I have no problems with this subdivision per se. And, staff, can you
flip to the previous slide before this? The one -- yeah. The stub. So, in essence, that
stub that goes to the north is, for all practical purposes, really not existent, because that
area to the north may not be developed. My concern is that, again, I echo these other
three people that were up here before -- two people. The traffic that's going to go
through Meridian Greens is going to be almost triple. You're looking at almost 40
homes here --
Borup: Twenty-one.
Rosette: Okay. Twenty-one.
Newton-Huckabay: No. Twenty-seven.
Rosette: Okay. Twenty-one. So, you're looking at -- in the neighborhood of about 40
vehicles going through this -- probably our subdivision, adding to this, the confusion
that's going through Meridian Greens right now. We contacted ACHD and tried to get
more stop signs, speed bumps, they wouldn't do anything about it. We have got a lot of
traffic going through Calderwood, cutting through at Calderwood onto Overland now,
what's going to happen is -- and I have talked to people from Observation Point, they
use Meridian Greens as a short cut to get to Overland going north. They don't go onto
Victory or they don't go over to Meridian-Kuna Highway, they, essentially, go through
the Meridian Greens Subdivision to get to their -- to Overland going north.
Borup: The Observation Point people do that you say?
Rosette: The Observation Point people do that right now. So, in essence, these 21
homes at an average of about two cars per home --
Borup: And I misspoke, it is 27.
Rosette: Twenty-seven. Okay. In the neighborhood of about 30, then. You're looking
at all that traffic going north, coming off of Andros there, coming through Meridian
Greens, because if you look at the way the traffic flows down, like I say, most of it is
going north. Anyway, I'd like to echo the last three individuals that were up here. The
Meridian Greens right now cannot do anything about the traffic flow down 5th and 3rd
Way. ACHD won't listen to us and we have had a lot of almost accidents within our
subdivision and it sounds like Observation Point does, too. So, anyway, thank you very
much.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 46 of 56
Canfield: My name is Mark Canfield. I'm the developer -- one of the developers of
Bitterbrush Point and I would like to speak to some of the concerns that have been
raised here this evening.
Rohm: Before you -- before you do that, let's make sure that we don't have any
additional concerns before we address them and, then, it will just be a one shot deal.
So, if you'll bear with me for a moment, we will make sure that that's the case. Is there
anybody else that would like to testify before this hearing? Okay. There you go. Now
you're on.
Canfield: Thank you very much. First off, this piece of property has been a gravel pit
since 1957. When we first acquired it there was a hole about 250 feet deep and since
we have that we filled the hole back in, tried to make it safe. There was some real
concerns by the folks in Observation Point that it was an attractive nuisance, so we
have tried to be a good neighbor by trying to get the hole filled in, landscaped, and take
care of the weeds that existed on the site. Secondly, the access that we do have now is
an easement off of Highway 69, Meridian-Kuna Highway. The easement with that goes
away when it ceases to be a gravel pit by the state of Idaho. So, that access will be
lost. However, I do believe that through the construction process we may be able to
continue to use that for an access point to eliminate construction traffic in front of the
homes in Observation Point and Meridian Greens with the permission of the state of
Idaho or potentially we are still, I guess, technically, an earth moving gravel situation
there, but--
Borup: That's what I was wondering. Until that subdivision is platted --
Canfield: Yes. So, hopefully, we can continue to use that through the construction
phase and eliminate, you know, heavy truck traffic, construction equipment, et cetera,
by using that easement point. Also the concerns about the traffic through Observation
Point, I understand and can sympathize with. The stub street that we do have to the
north, we have been approached within the last week by another developer who has,
we believe, purchased about seven acres north of there, so I do believe there are going
to be plans to come along fairly quickly for a development that would, then, give a
controlled access point out onto the Meridian-Kuna Highway. One other thing I might
add, too, is the concern about the fencing where the property overlooks Victory Greens.
There is about a 30 feet elevation change between where we sit up above and where
Meridian Greens is down below. So, fencingwise I don't feel that blocking that is a real
necessary objective. You don't see all the equipment and everything from where you
are up on top. You can see the top of the trees and the vegetation, which I think is a
very nice view and I think to screen it out would kind of be a tragedy.
Rohm: Just one more thing. On the subdivision signage do you have any comments
on that at all?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3,2006
Page 47 of 56
Canfield: We struggled long and hard with that as well, but we feel that trying to put
something up there may create more of a billboard effect than something that, you
know, just kind of flows from one development to the other to try to put some large
signage up with lighting or whatever it may take to announce it. I don't know that that's
the goal that we wanted to achieve that way. We are certainly not opposed to spending
the money on a nice monument with a sign on it, but, again, I don't know that it's -- the
effect or the location or how it would work. We couldn't come up with a plan that really
made a lot of sense to us.
Rohm: Okay. Well -- and I think that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay spoke to that
before you got up. So, thank you.
Borup: Mr. Canfield?
Canfield: Yes.
Borup: I guess I'd just like to echo my feelings on that -- on that construction entrance
from Meridian. I think that, obviously, for the people that live there that's an important
matter and I think that makes a lot of sense that that's the way it should go. I don't know
if you need specific written permission from the state or by the time they found out about
it you would be done, but --
Canfield: Well, we still would maintain a stockpile of gravel on the site in order to--
Borup: The real world.
Canfield: -- in order to maintain that exemption status, so -- and we could make it a
condition with the contractors that that is the site that has to be used for ingress and
egress.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair? I have got a question about that. Who owns the underlying fee? Is
it the Meridian Greens folks? Okay. So, it's possible, then, you could negotiate with
them for a temporary construction easement.
Rohm: Go ahead and respond to that at the mike if you would, please.
Canfield: I do believe it's the state of Idaho that does regulate the access to that point
into and out of there. But Oaas Laney just recently purchased that and we have an
agreement with them to use part of that for a sewer easement, but the actual curb
access onto the highway state of Idaho regulates. We tried to get an access point out
there and the state of Idaho said no. Period. No.
Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that we would like to see you have an alternate
construction entrance during the majority of the subdivision development itself.
Meridian Planning & Zoning .
August 3, 2006
Page 48 of 56
Canfield: I believe we can accommodate that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair? I'm not going to be a killjoy about this, but I think I better bring it up
just because it's something that's in the back of my mind. If there were to be an
accident on the state highway I would feel bad for not at least bringing it to your
attention. And that's having big trucks turning in -- left into this site across where people
are going 55. If you actually bring them to the intersection that's going to be signalized
this next year when the actual construction traffic for this subdivision is going to be
coming on the site, it may be a little safer and just bring that up just because we are
requiring that access to go away when Victory Greens goes away and so it will be there
for seven or eight more years is what they have leased from Oaas Laney, but it's really
not a good idea to have those large trucks trying to slow down in the middle of a state
highway at 55 miles an hour and turn left across traffic to get on a dirt road that has a
pretty steep incline, we are talking two, three trailers on some of these big trucks that
have -- you know, so I'm not trying to --
Borup: What if it's a right-in, right-out?
Hood: And that may be better. You still have trucks trying to, you know, slow down and
get off the interstate where there isn't a decellane, but that helps, I think. Just to bring -
- just a thought that came into my mind. I'm sorry to --
Rohm: No. That's what we have these hearings for. Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mr. Baird.
Baird: And to piggy back on top of that, if you're going to fashion a condition of approval
in that regard, you might want to get on the up and up with Idaho Transportation
Department, so they can use that with their approval. They would probably -- you would
probably want to have them give thumbs up or thumbs down on that. Something to
consider.
Rohm: Yeah. I was kind of thinking that we would just suggest that they attempt to
create something where they minimize the obstruction -- or the construction traffic to the
existing property owners and just leave it at that.
Baird: That would work.
Rohm: Rather than make it a condition of approval.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August3,2006
Page 49 of 56
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I don't -- I'm possibly in agreement. We don't need
to make it a condition of approval, but I would like -- I don't think we should abandon the
idea of creating -- exploring that option of that as a construction entrance, even if it were
as a right-in, right-out. I don't want -- I very clearly think it should be at least explored.
Rohm: I don't disagree with that. I just -- if we make it a condition of approval that they
use that and, then, there is objections from Idaho Department of Transportation or
ACHD, then, are we right back to square one. And so I hesitate to make it a condition
of approval I guess is my -- that's just my thoughts.
Hood: Mr. Chair? You can sure word a condition if approved by ITD thou shalt use
Meridian Road as your access for construction traffic and, then, if ITD doesn't approve
it, they are back to going through the subdivision. And so a substitute condition you
have left yourself that out if they don't get approval from the agency granting that permit,
if that's the direction you choose.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be my preference to have that -- at least that strong
wording.
Rohm: Okay. Good.
Borup: I agree with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I actually had a couple of questions. I think Caleb
answered one. The Victory Road intersection improvement is 2007?
Hood: Yeah. I think construction and -- Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay -- that is up for construction I think this fall even, with opening in 2007. Or it's
construction and open in 2007, too. I can't remember exactly. But it's in the next 12 or
15 months anyway, there should be a signalized intersection at Victory and State
Highway 69.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, Eagle -- the Eagle and Victory there is '08, too, which --
Hood: I think that one got pushed back a year.
Newton-Huckabay: '09?
Hood: Because it was scheduled to '07. No, it was scheduled for this next year and I
think they pushed that back to '08.
Newton-Huckabay: And where is Locust Grove in the mix on that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 50 of 56
Hood: The overpass is -- well, they are working on the Fairview to Franklin section this
year, I believe. Same with -- the overpass ran into some snags and I can't remember
what it was right now.
Newton-Huckabay: When we had the hearing for property they had to move a house or
something.
Hood: Yeah. But that's -- they are all within, you know, a year of each other, all those
projects.
Newton-Huckabay: Will that overpass create the signalized access at Locust Grove
and Victory there as well? Does that project put the light in?
Hood: I have not heard about a signal there.
Borup: That's a mile away.
Hood: Probably not far off, but--
Newton-Huckabay: What's the --
Borup: Overland.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it's -- I was off.
Borup: A mile.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, when I was a kid here it was a block. Okay. So, that
intersection we don't -- Locust Grove and Victory -- I don't remember seeing it either, so
-- okay.
Hood: I imagine it's on a plan somewhere. I don't think it's in the top, you know, five
years to be signalized.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And a stop sign in neighborhoods, you just have to apply to
ACHD for those? Is that how --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, what happens with your final plat
when it goes to ACHD, they actually have a traffic engineer look at the subdivision, say
you need a stop sign on this side of the intersection, on that side of the intersection, or
where ever they deem them necessary. So, that's how stop signs get put in. Now, after
the fact if a -- some folks, a homeowners association or something thinks that they need
one somewhere else, they will reevaluate it after the fact, but initially that's how your
stop signs get put in with your subdivisions is the traffic services person at ACHD.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 51 of 56
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just -- I had one question that probably needs to be addressed to staff and
that's on the house orientation and I think that mostly makes sense. I think -- I think it
complicates things to get too restrictive on construction requirements, but I notice you
do have that in the site specific requirements. So, I did have a comment on three of the
lot requirements. The reasoning is so that -- like side yards or against like yards, but
three of the lots with the designated orientation that it does not accomplish that,
because each lot side is different, so it's going to be unlike no matter which way the
house is oriented. So, I'm wondering if it makes that much difference on those -- I'm
specifically talking about Lot 4, Block 1, and, then, Lot 3 and Lot 14, just those three
lots, that if that's a little restrictive to specify the exact orientation on those. Plus, it gets
complicated on staff -- I mean on enforcing that for the department, too. Comments
there.
Hess: Commissioner Borup, I guess that's entirely at your discretion whether or not you
would like to strike that from the staff report. The reasoning behind that was -- I mean if
you look at the site plan here, these lots are all oriented northwest and the majority of
this lot -- or north-south, sorry. And the majority of this lot does -- or north-south. Sorry.
And the majority of this lot does orient north-south and the same with this one down
here, these are all, you know, angular and this direction, you know, parallels this one as
well, so--
Borup: Which would put the front of this looking at the backyard of that one.
Hess: Well, like you said, regardless --
Borup: Right.
Hess: -- it's going to --
Borup: Well, and say it may be able to go in at an angle. It's going to depend on the
house design and such on those two. Same thing here. Could be somewhat of an
angle. I don't know how much room there would be there. And this one could go --
either way you're going to be against the backyard. Again, you know, just getting too
restrictive just makes it harder for enforcement is my only thought on that. The others I
don't think -- you know, the others that are designated, you know, there is probably not
any other direction they would be able to put a house on anyway. Except for -- well,
that corner one maybe. Is that a concern for any of the Commissioners or it doesn't
matter?
Rohm: Well, your point is well taken.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 52 of 56
Moe: Yeah. I agree.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you're suggesting, then, that we strike --
Borup: Well, I'm saying that's a concern.
Newton-Huckabay: You pointed out -- on three you pointed out I think you have a valid
point and I would particularly -- at the bottom. I can't see what number that one is. Is
that three? .
Borup: Three.
Newton-Huckabay: On three -- well, all three of those.
Borup: A lot of it's going to depend on the house design, which you don't know what's
going to happen there. I would hope that the builder would be cognizant of that and -- I
mean if they do something that's going to be too obnoxious it's going to hurt their sales
value, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a suggested rewording in that?
Borup: Well, someone -- if we have it in there, someone's got to try to enforce it and I --
Rohm: I'm not opposed to just striking that one.
Borup: Oh, the whole thing? And the others -- I mean the others make sense that they
should be oriented that way, but it's probably the way they are going to be built anyway.
There is not a lot of choice.
Moe: I guess I would ask one question. I mean I'm in agreement with you, but at the
same point I did not hear the applicant --
Borup: I know. I should have brought it up to the applicant. I probably should have
asked them that, but --
Moe: They did not take exception to it within the report, so --
Borup: But they are not building the houses or trying to enforce that it happens that
way.
Moe: Again, I think that's a valid point there, so -- I have no problem with --
Newton-Huckabay: I suggest we strike 1.2.6.
Moe: I agree with you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 53 of 56
Borup: All of it, rather than just those specific lots?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Rohm: Any other discussion of this application before we close it?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to word smith a construction entrance?
Borup: I think what was just stated, whoever stated that.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, nobody is going to claim it, so --
Borup: I didn't say it. That it shall be used as a construction entrance if approved by
ITD? Something to that effect.
Moe: Actually, you have been taking great notes. I hope you're anticipating making a
motion.
Borup: Me?
Moe: I haven't.
Borup: I didn't have any notes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. One -- do you want to close the hearing?
Rohm: Well, let me just state two things that -- from the staff report perspective that
need to be stricken and before -- on items 1.2.5 strike 36 and put 34 feet there and,
then, strike all of 1.2.6. And those are the only two changes --
Hess: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's, actually, 34 feet and 36 feet. There just needs to be
an addition.
Rohm: Oh, 34 and 36. Okay. Thank you. And, then, strike the 1.2.6 and then --
Borup: The other option of that would say it's recommended that they orient that way,
but not required. I don't know if it's that important.
Rohm: Well, I think that if -- I think that if you strike it they are going to orient those
houses one way or the other anyway, so that -- I don't think that we have to speak to
that if -- from your comment.
Newton-Huckabay: Amanda, do you have a preference that you would like to
recommend houses are oriented that way?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 54 of 56
Hess: Well -- obviously, we had a preference, because we -- sorry, Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay, Obviously, we had a preference, because it was included in the staff
report, but --
Newton-Huckabay: No, I'm not asking the preference whether or not -- we are going to
change it, we are either going to recommend striking it or we are going to recommend
just recommending it.
Hess: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: So, I'm asking your preference --
Hess: It'd probably be easier, I would imagine, just to strike it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Do we need a 1.2 point something for the
construction entrance or --
Moe: 1.2.11.
Borup: Or it could be six. Replace it with the one you struck.
Newton-Huckabay: Just replace it with -- okay. I'll do that. We will do that.
Rohm: Okay. Then, at this point let's close the -- close the meeting.
Borup: Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036
and PP 06-039.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036
and PP 06-039, both related to Bitterbrush Point Subdivision. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on.
Cole: Mr. Chair, if I may. I'm sure Commissioner Newton-Huckabay remembered, but if
you could change -- Public Works comment 2.2 to reference the memo I would
appreciate it. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. I'm writing my 1.2.6.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 55 of 56
Rohm: Good.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Applicant will use the current access on Meridian Road as a
temporary construction access if approved by lTD. Do we need to put a right-in, right-
out preference or ITD would probably make that--
Rohm: I think ITD would make that determination. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-036 and PP 06-
034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006, with the
following modifications to the condition of approval: The first one being that condition
1.2.5 will be reworded to say dedicate and construct all internal roadways at 34 and 36
foot street sections. And the remainder of the sentence will remain the same. Item
1.2.6 in its current state will be removed and replaced with: Applicant will use the
current access on Meridian Road as a temporary construction access if approved by
lTD. And, finally, item number 2.2 in the staff report that starts with the applicant shall
be responsible to install a temporary off-peak pumping station, et cetera, will be
replaced with the new comment from the memo from Mike Cole dated August 1 st, 2006,
with his new 2.2 comment that begins with: The applicant shall be responsible to install
a temporary peak flow storage system in a location coordinated with the Public Works
Department, et cetera and so forth to the end of his comment on that memo. Is that --
end of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-036 and PP 06-039, to include all staff comments with the
aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Thank you for coming in.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 3, 2006
Page 56 of 56
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Meeting adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPR~J
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN