2006 09-21
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Reaular Meetina
September 21 , 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 21, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, David Zaremba, Keith Borup and Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Justin Lucas, Amanda
Hess, Sonya Watters and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the
roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: And the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are a
couple of changes to the agenda and they are Items NO.6 and 7. Both of these items
are related to the Portico Place Subdivision. The applicant has asked that this
application be withdrawn and I think there were some concerns from the applicant -- are
you not hearing me? Is the applicant for Portico Place Subdivision here? In any case,
they have asked that the application be withdrawn at this time and Item No.8, CUP 06-
028 for Dutch Brothers Drive- Thru has asked to have their item continued and they will
more than likely be continued to the November 16th regularly scheduled meeting. So, if
there is anybody here for either of those items, they will not be heard tonight. So, with
those changes I'd entertain a --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, it appears your mike is still not working, just so you're aware. I
don't know if it needs to be pulled out and replaced.
Rohm: Just a second and I will pull it out. Okay. All right. With that being said, could
we get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 2 of 86
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application
Forms:
Rohm: Okay. The first item is the Consent Agenda and there are two items on this and
it's the approval of the August 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and
Approval of Modification to Planning Department Application Forms. Are there any
additions or corrections to the minutes?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Seeing none, could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Boy, things are moving pretty smoothly now. Okay. Before we start any of the
public hearings, for those of you that do not attend these on a regular basis, there is a
protocol that we try to fix and, basically, what we do is we open the Public Hearing on a
particular project and we ask the staff to make their presentation. The staffs
presentation is, basically, a neutral presentation. They take a look at it -- at the project
as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. They make their presentation
with recommendation based upon how it applies to those -- those two documents.
Once they have made their presentation, then, we ask the applicant to come forward
and make their presentation. That's their opportunity to sell their project to the
Commission, but I believe they have 15 minutes, including all supportive testimony to
make their presentation. Once they make that presentation, then, it's opened to the
public to make their presentation. If there is a spokesman for a homeowners
association or something like that, they will be given additional time, but only -- if you're
speaking as an individual you will get three minutes each and if somebody that has
spoke before you has brought up every point that you have intended, it doesn't bring
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 3 of 86
any additional weight to bring the same information before the Commission. So, with
those things being said -- oh. And, then, once all testimony, the applicant has the
opportunity to make final testimony. And that's the process and, then, we will close the
hearing and render a decision.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you begin the Public Hearing, it appears your mike is still
not working properly and getting you on the record. We may need to use this mike
instead, because we don't seem to be getting it through the system.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request
for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of
Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a
residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek
Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's
Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot
on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by
Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC -
2475 S. Meridian Road:
Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP
06-040. Both of these items related to Shepherd Creek Subdivision and begin with our
staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was actually on
your agenda on August 17th and it was opened for the purpose of continuing it, so we
could get ACHD's comments and their commission action on this project. That, in fact,
happened yesterday afternoon and I will give you an update on that shortly. So, the two
applications in front of you tonight -- the first one is a miscellaneous application to
amend the existing development agreement on the 32 acres highlighted here in the
display. There are 55 single family buildable lots and one church lot proposed and
seven common lots. The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road about a half
mile south of Overland. The current development agreement in effect for this site does
restrict the uses to being the church as that was envisioned in 2001 when this property
was annexed into the city. There is a development agreement provision restricting
church and associated uses to the site. Therefore, they need that miscellaneous now.
Normally, a miscellaneous application would only go to the City Council, but because
they need to amend the DA to get the residential portion of this subdivision approved,
that is also on your agenda this evening, so I just wanted to point that out to you that in
most instances you wouldn't make a formal recommendation on a miscellaneous
application. I'm going to go to the aerial real quick. This is a slide I think we will
probably use a little bit this evening. It kind of helps put the neighborhood in
perspective and shows you kind of what's going on in the area. The 2005 aerial was
with the preliminary plats that have been approved to date by the city, also with a lighter
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 4 of 86
overlay on this same site. So, to the north and to the west are Bear Creek Subdivision.
To the south is Strada Bellissima. There are homes in Bear Creek Subdivision. The
city park. Strada Bellissima is single family homes and, then, there is some offices
fronting on Meridian Road there. There are a couple of accesses to State Highway 69
north of the subject site, one at the southern boundary at the church property, Miestra --
I believe is how it's pronouced -- Street there and, then, Victory would just be out of the
picture here. So, that's kind of what's happening in the vicinity. If you look further to the
west, Stoddard is at the half mile and, then, you have got Bear Creek West, also a
recently approved city subdivision, and some other projects on the east side of Meridian
Road and I don't know that we need to jump into that, but I just wanted to acquaint you
a little bit there. So, the major structure on this site is going to be the church, obviously,
for the Nazarene church there on Meridian Road and that's under construction. If you
have driven out there in the past couple few months you have seen them under
construction there. They are included with the subdivision. That was a requirement of
their Conditional Use Permit that all 32 acres be subdivided and so they have submitted
the application for all of -- all of the property that the church owned as of last year.
Twelve acres, as I understand, has been sold off and that's the residential portion of the
subdivision. As far as the subdivision itself goes for the existing R-8 zoning, it's pretty
clean. All of the lots conform to the minimum lot size, minimum frontage requirements
of R-8 zone. That being said, it's my belief -- and I don't -- I did go through the minutes
back in late 2000, early 2001, that this site obtained R-8 zoning not for medium density
residential, because with the old code a church was allowed with the Conditional Use
Permit with the R-8 zoning. R-4 zoning, which is more consistent with kind of this
general area, churches are prohibited. So, if they would have gotten an R-4 zone, they
wouldn't have even been able to build what was envisioned at the time and is under
construction today. So, the staff report recommends that to fit in with the area and
what's already been constructed in this section, at least half of this section, that the
densities be consistent with the R-4, not the R-8 zoning. I did not recommend that they
actually file a rezone and rezone it to R-4, just strictly that the lots conform to the R-4
standards. So, I did want to point that out as one of the major changes that staff is
recommending. The other one would be the disputed collector roadway. I'm going to
grab a pointer here real quick. Just a second. So, Kodiak Drive actually exists today.
Let me go back to the -- I'm not sure I can point it out exactly. I think it's right here -- is
the Kodiak Drive today. Kodiak within this project is right here. There is on the plan a
cross-hatched or lightly shown disputed collector roadway out to Meridian Road. I'll kind
of explain a little bit of how that at least got shown as being a disputed collector
roadway. It's something that has been discussed, even when the church was being
annexed into the site was the potential need for a roadway out to Meridian Road at the
half mile. The applicant did show that on -- at our request did put that collector roadway
on, so we could have this discussion tonight and in front of the City Council of whether a
collector roadway is needed in this section or not. So, we did get -- at least get them to
reluctantly put it on, but make no mistake, they are not proposing that roadway and now
I think I'll probably jump in and let you know that ACHD, in fact, is not supporting that
roadway and they had an opportunity twice, actually, to -- and they came to the same
conclusion both times, that they are not supportive of that connection to Meridian Road.
That being said, it is a state highway and under the jurisdiction of the Idaho
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 5 of 86
Transportation Department. They have approved an access point in theory. There is
no permit that's been granted, but I do have a letter from Sue at ITD saying that they are
supportive of an access point at the mid mile for this project. It does get a little sticky
with ACHD saying we are not supportive of the roadway. The city does have policies as
well about access to type four roadways, all state highways that are on the boundaries
or bisect the city. We do have policies about them being at the mid mile and the mid
mile only, as well as collector policies within the Comprehensive Plan and trying to get
that, you know, to collect and distribute traffic, essentially, is the idea behind the
collector roadways. The longer term goal I think is why staff is making this so hard on
the applicant, is there is a vision here. It's not -- it's not just something that we'd like to
put Matt through the wringer, I don't think, but there is an overall vision for this area and
to make it work we are looking to have that collector at the mid mile or some public
street at the mid mile, because the problem there is that Miestra Street, Calderwood,
and, then, there is another access I cannot remember the name of it, but I'm sure there
is a neighbor -- thank you. Davenport. That's in the -- on the west side of State
Highway 69 today. None of those access points meet ITD's policy for access, location,
on type for a roadway. They also would not conform to our UDC requirements today
and the idea, especially with Miestra and all of them eventually -- I envision something
similar to an Eagle Road where they could be restricted to right-in, right-out, in the
future by ITD and if, in fact, this signal occurs, there is -- by the way, there is a signal
that will be constructed here this year at Victory and Meridian Road. Of course, it's
already signalized at Overland. But if there is going to be a signal in that mile section,
it's going to have to occur somewhere at or near the mid mile point. So, that's why staff
is pushing for that so hard. I know a lot of people -- I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't
know the numbers. I know there was a traffic study done for only 55 lots and they have
spent a lot of time -- they being the applicant has spent a lot of time showing how traffic
will be distributed out of this project and through this project. But, you know, my guess
would be 85 to 90 percent of the traffic wants to go north. They are either going, you
know, to the interstate or going downtown, you aren't -- you just aren't. The dominant
direction of travel is not going to be south. That being said, if you restrict the access
points here in the future to right-in, right-out, people have to backtrack. They either
have to go back out to Stoddard, up to Overland, and back out or down to Victory to hit
this light and, then, back up. So, that's it in a nutshell. I think, hopefully, the staff report
made some sense, too, and further explained again why city staff thought this was an
important discussion to have, because I think it really hinders the future of this area.
And I should make it clear, I don't -- it's not warranted I don't think today to have this a
three-legged intersection at this point that -- without a signal. Without a signal it doesn't
function any better than the current quarter mile access points. Thinking long term,
though, and having that be a signalized access in the future to me makes some sense.
Again, a traffic engineer would probably say it's not warranted, it's not warranted, it's not
warranted. That may be the case if you just look at sheer numbers, but I think if you
look at the overall area and, again, with the city park being here, a school slated for
here, you're going to get folks that want to use this. Now, I don't think -- you will
probably hear from some neighbors tonight, because I have talked to a couple of them
anyways that are concerned about the existing streets and having people cut through,
basically, on some of these other streets, Kodiak and some of the other ones internally,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 6 of 86
to get to some of these things. Those are legitimate concerns to a certain extent. I
don't think that the traffic volumes on any of those local roads will exceed the 2,000
vehicle trips a day that ACHD allows for a local street, even if there were this collector
roadway put in with Shepherd Creek. But let me finish out the rest of the story, I guess.
So, that would get us a three-legged intersection if we got a collector at the northern
part. There is a terrible offset with Roslyn Court on the other side -- on the east side of
Meridian Road. These two parcels have yet to be annexed into the city. I imagine it
won't be too terribly long before they are wanting to develop them. They are highly
visible parcels, underutilized at this point. When they come in, either together or
independently, staff will look for the requirement that they either exchange or vacate the
right of way that is now Roslyn Court and shift that down to align where ever this,
hopefully, potential collector roadway lines up with that property. So, that finishes off,
so you have a four-legged intersection. That also allows -- there is very limited access.
Mussell Corner Subdivision, which is currently the landscape nursery, has a couple of
accesses today. The northern access will go away with the redevelopment of their rock
area back here. So, that access is slated to go away. There is interconnectivity on this
backside. Sitterbrush Subdivision, I believe was the name of this project, there is a stub
-- we are currently working with some folks on developing this parcel. You have,
essentially, a backage road or a frontage road that could tie in and, again, help the four
legs of that intersection function efficiently and folks in Meridian Greens or in this
general vicinity could also access this light. For them it would be a little -- it would be
easier, they could make the free right in, but it allows them to get back home a little
easier if they could use that light. But I think I'll stop talking about that. That's a huge
issue for staff. I mean we have struggled with it. It wasn't an easy thing when you look
at the policies, what is going on out there today, our Comprehensive Plan, it's just
something that we thought made sense for this area and we are recommending
approval of the project with -- again, the density being changed to R-4 type and the
collector roadway actually being constructed into the site. With that I think I will stand
for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Caleb, I'm just a little interested as far as ACHD -- what was their main reason?
Hood: Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, I was not at that hearing
yesterday. Some other folks in the audience may have some further input. When I was
there two weeks prior, the consensus among their board was that they did not want to
see another access to the state highway. That was what I came away with. They, to
me, weren't sold on the vision that we have, that we see for this area, and having them
take some of these access points and combining them into one signalized access in the
future. They were just, basically, to put it in a nutshell, were against having another
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 7 of 86
access to the state highway. And the offset. I mean that is something that we can't fix
today and if, in fact, you open that up there would be that offset problem, so --
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, at RMR Consulting,
at 2127 South Alaska Way in the Bear Creek Subdivision, just coincidentally,
representing this application, which is the Shepherd Creek Subdivision on 32 acres,
located on Meridian -- South Meridian Road. I'm going to have to speak fast to get all
this in in 15 minutes, because there is a lot to cover with the transportation issues and
the others issue that have come about and really really kind of surprising for a site that's
12 acres and 55 lots. to have a huge of issues as it seems to have had and I think it's
just a bad location near mid mile that's kind of brought this up. But if I could, I -- I will
have Caleb show if you could -- like an overall, just to get our bearings of, really, where
we are at and maybe -- I know a lot of my fellow neighbors are here and they don't know
as much about what projects are coming in the area that might help the regional traffic
that seem to be happening out in this area. Here we have Meridian Road through the
middle, which is a state highway. Overland Road on the north. Victory Road on the
south. Locust Grove on the east. Under on the west. This is two square miles. These
are existing lots as they stand platted today. In this section we have over -- about 1,100
lots existing. Meridian Greens, Sportsman's, Observation Point, Glacier Springs. We
have Bear Creek over here. Elk Run. Strada Bellissima. We have got about 600
existing lots over here, with another 321 approved at Bear Creek West. There is a
middle school proposed sometime in the future. We have a community park that serves
more than just Bear Creek, it serves the whole area. Some of the transportation things
that are happening -- right now everybody funnels down Meridian Road in south Ada
County and even from South Nampa. I know, I used to live in South Nampa, I'd come
this way, cut up Columbia Road, up Meridian Road, and so everybody in the morning
collects right here. It backs up Meridian Road. It backs up Overland. Some of the
things that are coming in very soon -- we have a signal coming in at Victory as we
speak, it's under construction, which is a good thing. They are widening Overland from
here to Under this next year and putting in a signal at Stoddard, which is another good
thing. They are going to improve this intersection. We have got the Locust Grove
overpass going in here very soon I keep hearing for the last several years, but I hear it's
coming quick. And, then, we have Ten Mile interchange one mile down the road, which
is coming quite soon, too. So, we have, I believe, over 40 million dollars slated in the
next five years, if you include the Meridian couplet as well, that's going to go within the
couple of square miles, which is a good thing. It's a very convenient location where we
live, but there is some congestion that is here. It's caused not by Bear Creek, not by
these people, but it is a regional-type traffic issue that we have and we have a state
highway going right through the middle that ITD has -- has jurisdiction over. So, I just
wanted to get everybody's bearings about where we are. We are actually right here on
the 12 acres. That's a residential portion. The front end is around 20 acres of church
that they are retaining for their church site. If you could go to the next one, please,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 8 of 86
Caleb. Thanks. That's a little squished. It got scanned in, but that shows kind of a
zoomed in area of the Elk Run, which was done in '95 -- '93 and '95. Calderwood was
put in at that time. They did some fore planning, which was the best available
information at the time to put a collector through there. So, that's where a lot of traffic
for Bear Creek does go out right now. They are doing a Schuck's right here on the
corner. They are building one and there is some more going in. Bear Creek was done
between 2000 and there is still one vacant lot down here, but they are pretty much
done, 350 odd lots. Strada Bellissima was done in the last couple of years. They have
just recorded their second phase. About 100 lots here, 350 here, and 100 lots here, so
there is 550 lots existing around this in this half section. We do have a mid mile
collector. We have Stoddard Road, which is a good traffic access signal and out to
Overland or out to Victory with signals. So, there is exceptional access out as we
speak. It is -- it doesn't appear to, because of that bottleneck at Meridian Road, but,
truly, when we do get these other improvements in there, it will function fairly well out
here. We need that mid mile collector for the school and some other things, but -- from
the park. But the traffic flows good through Bear Creek, it's a relatively low density, it's
under three to the acre. This whole area is under three to the acre. You're not going to
run into traffic issues, usually, at three to the acre. You're not -- when you start getting
high high density, that's when you're going to run into them. So, it functions as we
would expect. We did do a traffic analysis of the whole thing and how we related to it,
just to be safe, so we knew what was going on, even though ACHD didn't require it.
The church was annexed -- or, excuse me -- yes, annexed and given a development
agreement several years ago under an R-8 zone for purposes of the church. I have
seen their old site plan. They had a recreational complex back here in the back
originally. They had their church up front. Over the years they have seen Bear Creek
come in, they have seen a community park come in, they have seen a need to -- that
the park isn't making much sense anymore, obviously, that is just one right here a
hundred yards away, so just this last February 16th they saw a need to generate some
income to fund their new church and they did a legal split of this, so it was legally
separated out. The parcel has three accesses, 12 acres exactly. They just decided on
12 acres. That's what was going to go to auction and they did sell it off and got a good
price for it and my client purchased this knowing that it was R-8. We knew there was a
development agreement on it, but it's -- I'm here to say that R-8 is still the appropriate
density, even though -- or R-8 is the appropriate zoning, even though maybe that wasn't
the real reason, you know, the church went was to have homes in the back, because
that wasn't their intent from the beginning. But as times have changed and we have
seen the land values go up 700 percent in the last six years, you know, things have
changed a little bit in terms of how we -- how we create lots, what we think are good
lots, what we think are -- you know, things have changed since the late '90s. So, I'm
here on behalf of both applicants. This is a joint application. This board or Commission
granted a CUP back on February 16th for the church. That was a final action. They
pulled a building permit. They are moving forward. However, one of the conditions was
that they resubmit with us. So, we are separate owners, jointly attached in one
application before you tonight. I mean they are under construction, so they are moving
ahead regardless, and there has been some issues with respect to the -- the collector
through here and some other things that have been a little bit of complications. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 9 of 86
we are a little bit divergent with my neighbors on the zoning. I know we are united on
the collector, that it's -- that it's a bad idea to retrofit a low density subdivision with a high
-- high volume potential road, to summarize it in a nutshell. And we had a lengthy
discussion at ACHD regarding the merits, the warrants, bad idea, good idea, if it was
good planning or bad planning, it was unanimous yesterday. It wasn't because -- they
kind of revised their original recommendation. It wasn't because of access, because I'm
saying if these people need a signal later, maybe there will be warrants for that signal.
Just don't connect it to Bear Creek. There is no need for it. We have got great access
out to Victory, out to Stoddard, you know, out to Meridian Road. There is no need for it,
there is no warrant for it, and to come in after the fact, it's just going to -- it mayor may
not cause cut-through traffic, I wouldn't want to chance it myself. I think it will, but I
could be wrong. I wouldn't want to gamble on something that there is no need for and it
carves up the church property, they want to do recreational facilities in those areas, it's
an additional cost that we could bear if there was a warrant and if it was a good idea we
would do that. But for what you get for it, it's not real -- ACHD was -- it was a very
lengthy unanimous decision that even if City Council approves it or wants it in the rare
likelihood that they would do that, they won't maintain it, they won't take it, they won't
recognize it. ITD would allow an intersection if you want one. They are not saying you
must have one. They are saying if you want one you can have it at the mid mile and if
you have it at the mid mile, you better have a signal. It's so -- it's kind of reverse logic
that if you want a signal you better put traffic to it. Well, we don't want to put traffic to it,
so there is a little bit of reverse logic going on there and ACHD saw through that and
decided adamantly against that. So, I really want to get passed the collector issue. If
you have any questions or concerns we can address those, but I want to focus in on the
site, which our site works with or without it, we have allowed for it, that if it's needed our
site works. If it's not needed our site works. So, we just want to focus in on the
subdivision itself and talk about that. The church is here to discuss the church portion.
I'm assuming that the church portion is okay, because you have already approved that
as a CUP, so we are going to focus in on the residential portion and just focus on that
and not reiterate things that have already been said, unless you have any questions
from back in February for the church, they are here for that. You can go to the next
slide, please. We have, like I said, 12, exactly, acres by this width, which is defined by
Bear Creek No. 6 on the north, Bear Creek No. 7 on the west, Strada Bellissima on the
south -- so, they decided 12 acres exactly, whatever width of that was, that's what the
width was and that's what they took to auction and that's what was bought and so there
was no prior planning as to what kind of subdivision would fit on that. He was close.
What you're left with was we talked to staff, we have three existing stub streets, so we
are fixed there. I mean they are there, we can't really ignore them, and a loop, 150 -- 50
foot road, 100 foot deep, 150, 150, 50 foot road, 150 -- or 97 feet deep. So, we were
fixed on the width, so the question becomes how wide do you make your lots. We
looked at the overall densities and just as a point, I was the original project manager on
Bear Creek for the last five years. The two years I wasn't, but I have lived there, I have
seen every house built in Bear Creek, I know all that has happened. Phase Six was
approved as an R-8. They did a little land swap with the church for some stuff up front
back a few years ago and they are up near the -- they are 8,000 square foot lots, but
they are under 80 feet wide, so there is some R-8 here, but they are bigger -- bigger
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 10 of 86
.
lots, SO about three and a half -- 3.4 to the acre is what this is laid out at. This phase
was replatted as well from the original preliminary plat. It went from 31 to 40 lots. They
were 15,000 and they went down to like ten, which are still good size lots. The density
comes in at right around just 2.9, close to three. Strada is probably under three. When
you look at our sidewalk along here, we have worked with staff, decided these would be
R-4 type lots, 14,000, 10,000, 9,000, eight -- 8,000 through here. These are like 7,900,
8,000, 7,900, very very close. These are seven thousand square foot lots in here.
These lots here that are buffered by our own lots, they are buffered by landscaping
down here. They are buffered by some elevation and deeper lots down here. We made
-- we made some five and six thousand square foot lots, transitioning this way,
transitioning north. We have got a buffer here on the north here. We really tried to
blend in and step up the densities. If you look at the density of this here, it's right
around three and a half to the acre. If you look at that. Which is very very close to
what's north of this here. A little bit more than what's here, but it's not a whole lot
different in terms of density. If you look at this area here, we are actually at six. The
blended overall is just over four and a half. But it's a mix, it's a blend, so what we did
was we were very conscious of lot width, you match up lot widths. We weren't blessed
with extra lot depth and, you know, in hindsight we would have liked to have been able
to buy 13 acres and have those extra deep, but that's just what was for sale and what
was bought. And staff has recommended this type of layout. As far as our overall
landscaping -- is there a landscape plan, Caleb, please? We have a common area here
that is -- it looks small on here, but if you measure all the common lots in Bear Creek
park -- or Bear Creek, except the park, and Strada Bellissima and Elk Run, it's, actually,
the biggest usable open space, if you can believe it, compared to what -- what's at Bear
Creek and all the other ones, with the exception of the 19 acre park, obviously. We
have a pathway that interconnects this way. We have got an additional pedestrian
access to the -- to the church. We have got buffers here and here. We showed this
stub as a -- if emergency vehicles -- there has been discussion, they mayor may not
want additional access, let's use that corridor that we had preserved for a potential
collector for emergency and pedestrian access to the church. Just leave it open. It's
also a corridor for the future Black Cat trunk down through here. A corridor for irrigation
lines. A corridor for a water line. So, it's a good open corridor for some utilities as well.
So, our open space comes in just at six and a half percent. If you count all the open
space -- usable open space in the other subdivisions, it's like three. So, we, actually,
have more usable percentage of open space than anybody around us, even though we
are only 12 acres. So, it's not a lot of space, but percentage-wise we do have good
open space. We have listened to the residents. We had a concern about -- you know,
you guys aren't doing anything with that space, put something in it. We agreed, okay,
even though the Bittercreek Park is only, you know, a hundred yards away, but it is a
couple hundred yards more, so let's put a playground in there. So, we are going to put
a playground in there. We listened to the residents. Thank you. You know, it fits in that
area easily. It's a good playground. We do -- we do have a petition. We do have some
other things, but I just hope to be able to come here and speak and tell people what we
have and clear up some of the fears. I think there is some misinformation with the
petition. I intercepted it myself and heard some things I wasn't aware of and I'm the guy
that's in charge of it, so I just wanted to make sure everybody understands what we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 11 of 86
proposing here is a quality project. It does fit at an R-8. It matches subdivisions that
have been approved, like Tuscany Village, Sutherland Farms, Woodbridge, Messina
Meadows, Bear Creek West, Tanana Valley, Reflection Ridge, Jayden Village, Southern
Springs -- these are all subdivisions that have blended into these R-8, R-4 mix. They
are compatible. These lots here -- it's hard to believe, but land prices are such that
these will be more expensive than almost every lot in Bear Creek sold for a few years
ago, which is bad, actually. But that's where we are at with the prices. We are talking --
we will be hard pressed to keep them under 300,000 on these lots. These will be in the
five to six hundred range. We are way passed affordable here, we are talking
reasonable price and 300 is a challenge and that's because at the higher level you just -
_ things are slow at that price. So, we are trying to get some mix. Some of the church
members said they'd like to buy a lot, they are older, some of them, they don't need a
bigger lot, so we put that mix in there, potentially, as just an option. Notice everything is
not in the manila 80 by 100. Give people an option in there and still have a nice
subdivision. I think I have covered everything, other than I want to point out that if we
really wanted to do a hard R-8, we could have 65 lots. If we went down to an R-4 that
would have been 43 lots. It's an alternative, so it's a pretty easy one to do it on. Just
moving a lot width. We are coming in in the middle of that. We will be right there at the
55 lots at around 4.5 to the acre. We were trying to blend the density, transition the
density, and provide all the amenities that would be expected of site to site with five
acres -- for 55 lots. It's another phase, really, of Bear Creek or Strada Bellissima or
whatever. So, I guess with that I'll stand firm. I know there are some people that want
to speak from the neighborhood. We do respect them coming and participating in the
public process, which I appreciate a lot more than some petitions would have some
information that I saw that we were going to be hurting kids and -- you know, and all that
with this high density subdivision and that is not even close to the remote truth of what's
going on in this area. If I could answer any questions I will right now. If not, I'll reserve
them for later.
Rohm: That was a great presentation.
Schultz: Thank you.
Rohm: I do have one question, though. As I'm looking at the sign-up sheet here and,
quite honestly, the majority of the people that signed up to speak are going to speak.
against.
Schultz: I saw that.
Rohm: And maybe -- normally we don't do it this way, but I'm going to just ask you to --
I'm pretty sure you have a pretty good feel for what some of these major concerns are
and maybe rather than have them speak first, let you -- can you speak to some of
these --
Schultz: I can go through the petition of you want me to.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 12 of 86
Rohm: Well -- and I don't want to take -- I don't want to take this -- I don't know. Maybe
it's a bad idea.
Schultz: It's okay. We can go through the process and we can go through it that way.
Rohm: The point -- the point that I wanted to make, though, is as you come in with a
development application, it always makes it easier for both sides of the table to work
with you, if, in fact, you have been able to address the concerns of the community and
have some kind of a response in order and it looks like from the number of people that
have signed up that we are not quite there yet and that's -- and I --
Schultz: They signed up before they heard my presentation, too, so we will see what
they end up saying.
Rohm: All right. With that being said, thank you. Really, you did a good job.
Schultz: Well, appreciate it. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Again, before we take public testimony, it's real important, because of
the number of people that have signed up, that if, in fact, somebody that has spoken
before you has spoke to the specific issue that you wanted to bring before the
Commission we appreciate it if you would just say I have been spoken for and we will
go on to the next one. But by no means is that a request to not get up and speak. So,
with that said, the first person signed up is Kelly James.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. You may want to check, though. I think you
were almost there a minute ago. You may want to see if there is someone representing
the neighborhood association and give them some extra time if they are speaking on
behalf of 10, 12, 15 neighbors that are here. And I know there is at least one that's got
a presentation that's ready to roll here, so I don't know how much they are speaking for
the neighborhood or not, but to start them is probably --
Rohm: Okay. I'm not opposed to that, so is there a -- well, just a second. Is there a
spokesman for the subdivision? If you'd like to come forward, ma'am. And before you
start speaking, I'd like to see a show of hands of those that she is speaking for. Wow,
that's the majority.
Borup: And what he's meaning by the statement, all those that raised their hands, then,
would not be speaking. Is that your understanding?
Rohm: Right. And that's the purpose. Basically, if you have signed up to speak and
she's speaking for you, we are going to take those names off the list, so that's the way
that process works and she will be given additional time to speak and, really, I think
everybody's best interest is served that way. With that being said, when you start give
your name and address, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21. 2006
Page 13 of 86
Newell-Lemaster: My name is Kimberly Newell-Lemaster. I'm the Homeowners
Association President for Bear Creek. I live at 2640 South Bear Claw Way in Meridian,
Idaho. This is will be a co-presentation with Karen McGordon of Bear Creek also. Bear
Creek is a planned community with approximately 354 homes and the values range
from 300 to 900 thousand. The density in Bear Creek does average 2.6 homes per
acre and the figures that we have for Strada Bellissima is 2.5. Bear Creek West is also
2.5. Bear Creek has a lot of amenities, pedestrian walkways to the Bear Creek Park,
lighted streets, and walkways, planted mediums, separate entrances with plants and
street trees. Shepherd's Creek, as it is proposed, that 55 homes on 12 acres, does
average 4.6 homes and we'd like to point out that we are not against Shepherd Creek
Subdivision, we do have traffic issues and we do have density issues. There is no
distinct and separate entrance to the development and although he was talking about
the amount of green spaces they have and that it's higher than Bear Creek and the Bear
Creek Homeowners Association currently pays to maintain 13 acres of common
property. Access through Bear Creek and Bellissima and there is no primary outlet
burden for the access on Bear Creek. We currently have a petition that has been
signed by 243 Bear Creek homeowners that share the same concerns and we have
also -- we have eight additional signatures that were added as of 9/20/06. Again, the
homeowners concerns with the proposed development and now the Kodiak possible
collector street. Access -- our issues are access issues, including the newly proposed
collector street and, again, this appears to be by the City of Meridian staff, because
ACHD was totally against it and what their concern was when this was brought up on
9/6 was they are about Meridian Road becoming another Eagle Road and we all know
what a nightmare that could be. Our other issues are the land use and the density. The
lot size, more than the home value. Drainage issues -- we will show you some pictures
and Karen will talk about the fact that this 12 acres does sit up. The elevation of it is
quite a bit higher and there are drainage issues with homes that border this subdivision
on -- it would be the east side of Bear Creek and it would be the west side of the
proposed Shepherd's Creek. Other concerns are the amount of open spaces. We feel
that they could utilize and maybe combine them into a little bit better utilization for their -
- for their own people that would purchase homes in that area. Other issues that we
have is there are no covenants, conditions, or restrictions that are being proposed with
this subdivision and no transitional entrances, no street planning, anything that would
match up with the way that Strada Bellissima is and currently how Bear Creek is
designed. Vehicular traffic issues. There are no alternate routes. So, I know that they
talk about this great site right in here, this is the proposed Shepherd's Creek and they
do have an outlet to the south, which they kind of wind through Strada Bellissima and
end up over at Victory, but until the light is complete, which, like Matt was saying,
thankfully they are working on, we also believe that it will be as easy or easier for these
people to turn down and go out Bear Creek's exit onto Stoddard, which this would be
Grisly. There is a stub street that comes in at the end of Bear Track and so they would
take Bear Track down to Bear Tooth and go out the Kodiak access, the center entrance
of Bear Creek. The stub street that the city is proposing is this one that would come off
of this east -- northeast corner of Shepherd's Creek and come across the church
property. And so it comes out onto Cub -- I guess this little section right here is
currently called Alaska Way. It turns onto Cub, goes down through this section that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 14 of 86
Kodiak and onto Stoddard. And, then, fortunately, we revised our presentation and we
don't have the pictures and Matt was talking about how well traffic does move through
here, but I have seen traffic during the rush hour in the morning that is backed up back
to this center entrance-exit into Bear Creek. So, it's backed up pretty much close to a
half a mile from Overland Road on Stoddard, because the traffic is always backed up to
Linder Road on Stoddard in the morning. Let's see. Shepherd's Creek -- we -- we are
projecting that Shepherd's Creek will create approximately another 500 vehicle -- 550
vehicle trips per day through Bear Creek. Bear Creek generates approximately 3,500
vehicle trips per day and the Bear Creek West we were figuring will project probably to
300 -- or 3,300 vehicle trips per day that will add to the traffic on Stoddard. We also
have the other subdivisions, Edgar's, Pebble, Kentucky and Model, which estimate
another 1,400 plus vehicle trips per day and with the school that's projected here, we
don't have an idea how many that -- but total trips between all of these subdivisions, it's
approximately 8,180 vehicle trips per day. Shepherd's Creek traffic will primarily use
Bear Creek roads and this just puts a burden on the existing roads with no distinct
entrance. Alternate needed to reduce the congestion, they need to have a direct
access to Alfini Way that crossed over to Victory Road and when Matt made the
comment, we are not saying that we are worried that the children are going to be hurt by
this development, we don't dispute that -- that the development could be put in there, we
dispute the density and the number of vehicle trips per day that would be added and the
connector road that the city is wanting to put in there, because we do think that it will get
utilized a lot more. Again, advised by ACHD of the inclusion of Bear Creek --let's see--
homeowners association and yesterday's 9/20 meeting, we were unaware of any
actions the city and the developer had regarding the collector road and maybe at the
end of this presentation Mr. Nary could comment on it. We question the legality of the
change in the meeting with the ACHD when he wanted to have their recommendations
removed from the 9/6 meeting, because it was our understanding the public was
supposed to be notified and there were no letters to the people that live within 300 feet
of this. They were notified of the original meeting, but no one was notified that he had
gone to ACHD and asked to be put on the agenda and, then, I had a phone call and so
we were really unable to notify the entire neighborhood. We had two days that we
notified the homeowners on Kodiak and on Cub by putting a flier at each of their homes,
but we didn't have a chance to notify everyone in the neighborhood. And at this time I'll
turn it over to Karen.
McGordon: Karen McGordon, 2631 South Hibernation Place, Meridian, and I'm going to
cover the next section addressing traffic issues and addressing issues with the collector.
I'd like to state first that the Bear Creek residents do oppose and are concerned with the
proposed collector street that is currently being proposed by the Meridian Planning and
Zoning. I want to present a series of drawings and maps that address related traffic
issues specific to the Shepherd's Creek development and the City of Meridian's
proposed collector. Starting with the Shepherd's Creek, this map one, the Shepherd's
Creek traffic impact as proposed -- Kimberly covered some of that. I just want to go a
little further with it. No outlet to a primary road. The burden for traffic does fall on Bear
Creek primarily. Currently, with the no light at Victory, people do tend to go out to
Stoddard and, then, to Overland. All the traffic does funnel that way and there is no
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 15 of 86
direct fire and emergency access. Boundary of Bear Creek is in that light green color
and as Kimberly pointed out, there is those three primary roads that do go out to
Stoddard. Now, the subdivision does have their -- does have an alternate -- their route
that goes out -- that could go out -- potentially out this direction to Victory, but we also
have Miestra here as well, that would not be able to be utilized directly, you'd have to go
out and make a circuitous route to get out. So, just to point out that there are also other
alternates that -- alternatives to this that we would like to address and I'll address those
shortly. I want to address next the proposed collector street. The residents of Bear
Creek feel that this collector street would have residual impacts on Kodiak. The existing
Kodiak Street does not meet any of the ACHD technical requirement for a collector
street, but it would certainly be used as such without benefit of ever having being
designed as a collector street. The park's there, a school is proposed, you're going to
have another 330 homes in Bear Creek West. We have all the traffic that comes down
Victory utilizing Stoddard. People are going to use that. There is a light, there is a way
to get to Meridian Road. You're going to pop through that subdivision. So, that's
primarily what we will be -- I'm going to be addressing. Kodiak and Cub Streets within
the subdivision -- this is Kodiak. Cub goes up here along there. The proposed collector
would be at the back doors of all of the individuals whose homes are on Cub Street.
The other impacts would be the through traffic that would go through the subdivision.
Again, Kodiak and Cub would be directly affected by the collective impacts that this
proposal would create. There would be significantly more traffic on a residential road
that was not designed as a collector street. The higher speeds, the cars backing on --
into oncoming traffic, there is approximately 50 homes that front -- have direct lot
access along this section of the road. There would be conflicts with children playing
and pedestrians. There is a large number of children in the subdivision. There is
mostly -- primarily young families that live here. It's certainly an issue. It would turn a
quiet residential street into a very busy, noisy and unsafe street. The proposed collector
street in this situation where it would tie into the existing Kodiak, is not good design and
planning. That development was done some time ago. That street was not designed --
the remainder of Kodiak there was not designed as a collector. If a collect street is
going to be an element of good planning, it should be designed into the city's
Comprehensive Plan. If we know that every half mile we are going to have a collector
street, we should be putting that information right in the plan and addressing it at the
planning level. It does not consider the impact to the residents and the homeowners
that purchased their properties, unknowing that government officials could arbitrarily
make changes that had significant impacts on their property value. The values of the
homes -- the average from Cub all the way to there is 18 and a half million dollars in
value. That's a significant value and a lot of money that these individuals have put into
these homes. This collector street would encourage through traffic through Bear Creek
and, as I said earlier, the impacts with the other developments along Stoddard, it's going
to be significant. This should not be added as an afterthought. Significant issues with
Kodiak as a collector and also Kodiak again not designed as a collector street. Next
slide. I would like to address in this next series of slides the requirements of residential
collector streets and the requirements of collector streets. Starting with the residential
collector, the ACHD requirements are on the left, the potential impacts to Bear Creek
and the existing Kodiak are on the right. The ACHD requirements for average daily
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 16 of 86
traffic is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. If you look at all the potential that's going to
happen, plus what's currently there, we are looking at roughly 8,100, potentially, that
could use that street. Vehicle access, the guidance says to discourage direct lot
access. Again, on the portion of it that's going to be impacted, there is approximately 50
direct lot access points. Through traffic. The requirements are use for through traffic is
discouraged. Through traffic is going to be significant. The park, the school, Bear
Creek West, the other subdivisions, are going to contribute to through traffic. The street
pattern. The requirement says it should extend no more than 1,300 feet into the square
mile. Kodiak is going to be used as a collector and it goes clear through, it's full half
mile. Again, a continuation on the residential collector street. The requirement, the
traffic considerations, the RCS should be such that it doesn't interfere with an area's
livability. This proposed collector is going to interfere with the livability of that
subdivision and of the people who live along there and live within Bear Creek. The
speed control, the RCS, 30 miles per hour is recommended, this Kodiak, if it's going to
be used as that, which it will, it has jogs and curves and six intersections and it would
not support 30 miles per hour. Pedestrians. There is definitely going to be issues with
conflicts with pedestrians. A couple photos of existing conditions within Bear Creek.
This is Kodiak on the left. The width of all streets on -- of all sections of Kodiak, with the
exception off the entrance off Stoddard is 36 feet wide. There is 90 degree curves on
Kodiak. There is a second 90 degree curve where Kodiak and Cub meet. Showing the
intersection of Shepherd's Creek Road and Alaska Way, it's currently a 36 foot width
and the road alignment Cub from Alaska Way, again, 36 inch -- 36 foot width. If you put
-- if cars are parking on the streets, which they do, because a lot of individuals have
visitors on a routine basis, you reduce the clear width of that down -- essentially, you
take 20 feet out of it. You're down to 16 feet and, granted, it's not that way clear
through. But I would not want to see cars parking and increased traffic on this width of
a road. And, then, just to show you the 36 inch width. The RCS requires a 36 inch
width - 36-foot width. A regular collector street requires 41. Collector street
requirements for a full collector street, average daily traffic requirement is 2,500 to
8.500. Again, potentially -- there is a potential for 8,100 and it's unknown how much the
school will generate. The vehicle access -- direct access -- lot access for a collector is
prohibited and, again, there is approximately 50 direct access lots. Through traffic is
encouraged. We would hope this would not happen. There would certainly be direct
traffic conflicts. Street patterns -- the collector street requirements discourage
continuation of a collector through an artery and it's going to happen without question.
So, there would be definite impacts to the -- to the existing Kodiak from this. Again, just
more -- more of the ACHD requirements, the traffic considerations, speed control,
intersections, and pedestrians. I'm not going to go through these point by point,
because I have already made statements related to its similar impacts -- potential
impacts. This collector street, we feel as residents, would be costly for taxpayers and it
would impact the homeowner. The lighted road -- obviously, the developer, if this were
required, would probably have to suffer the cost of that. Kodiak and Cub Street would
have impacts from the significant increase in traffic. There would be safety issues along
the existing Kodiak, with a direct lot access and the increased traffic that this would
generate and it impacts 50 homeowners' property values. The light on the state
highway would be another impediment on Meridian Road. It would stop traffic on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 17 of 86
state highway and it would create more issues with traffic flow. Now, I'm going to jump
from the collector issue back to the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision. This proposed
alternative that was proposed yesterday to ACHD as an alternate to access out of
Shepherd's Creek and what we are proposing here -- this is the subdivision. This is the
church property here. Currently, as proposed by the developer, this road goes straight
out to Garibaldi, then, goes out and exits out. What we would propose is that on the
second road, a direct access out, and, then, a direct road out to Miestra, which is the
right-in and right-out off of Meridian Road or a direct access out to Victory to a light --
soon to be signalized intersection. ACHD did not approve this, but I still want to offer it
up tonight as another alternative. It does provide an alternate route to a primary road.
It can be used -- it would be able to be used soon when the light at Victory is up or
Miestra, again, you could go right in or right out. Takes pressure off Bear Creek. It
allows better emergency vehicle access and it places some of the burden on
Shepherd's Creek for improving access. There would be minimal to no cost to
taxpayers, whereas a collector would involve significant cost and impacts to the
homeowner. And there could be residual lawsuits, issues with the proposed collector
road. Prop 2 is on the ballot. I think all of you are aware of that. We are concerned
about Prop 2, just as I'm sure the city and county and state governments are, but it's
certainly something that's looming out there and it's something we are concerned with
also.
Newell-Lemaster: Well, I just want the Commission to know that Bear Creek isn't
threatening lawsuits, it's just more of making sure that everybody is aware that Prop 2 is
out there and we as taxpayers don't want to be paying lawsuits if roads like this are
approved and homeowners suffer a loss. If Prop 2 is passed, then, they will have the
opportunity to open up a lot of lawsuits for our city and county governments.
McGordon: This is just some photos of the -- this proposed location. Miestra right here
-- this is Miestra coming off Meridian Road going into Bellissima Strada. Over here is
the church's access road and, then, the road from Shepherd's -- the alternate proposed
road from Shepherd's Creek would come in here, tie into the church's access road, and,
then, dump onto Miestra or it could go straight out Alfini. Alfini is shown here. The
church road is shown here. Just a quick summary of the access and collector road
issues. Want to make it clear that the Bear Creek residents do oppose the signalized
collector street. It was not originally designed as part of Bear Creek development. It's
now being proposed as an after-thought. Bear Creek roads are not designed to handle
that amount of traffic or that potential amount of traffic, so it's certainly an issue. We do
support also the alternate access that's recommended by ACHD at the meeting
yesterday that was held. Other issues with traffic -- construction traffic. We do not want
construction traffic going through the subdivision, provide -- our recommending to
provide an alternate access for the construction traffic, not to go through Bear Creek.
Fire and emergency vehicles, again, no direct access from a primary road. I think that's
a critical point. The safety of our Bear Creek residents and children. Along one
segment of the road where this goes out there is over 35 children just within about 12
houses on the other segments of the road. There is roughly 65 to 75 children. So,
there is a lot of small children. So, I was very happy to hear Matt suggest that tot lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 18 of 86
would be put in, because it certainly would serve the large number of children that live
on the two streets that stub off going into Shepherd's Creek.
Rohm: Ma'am, you need to conclude here pretty quick. Your presentation has already
exceeded the applicant's time and really this -- in fairness to both you need to --
McGordon: Okay. I'm going to--
Newton-Huckabay: Your presentation has almost been a half an hour.
Rohm: And that's why I have allowed her to continue, but you need to --
McGordon: Okay. I'll go through the rest quickly.
Rohm: Thank you.
McGordon: I'm -- these are proposed actions. Obviously, we oppose the collector road.
We want to reduce the density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day. Provide
direct access to a primary road. Require a separate construction access. And require a
direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency. Density. The big issue. Bear
Creek is low density. Shepherd's Creek is medium density. The original zoning of the
church property was public-quasi public. Proposed density of Shepherd's Creek, 55
homes on 12 acres, approximately 4.6 homes per acre, versus the 2.6 of Bear Creek
and, then, 2.5 of Bellissima Strada and others in the area. Transportation access is the
key issue for us. The surrounding land use is a definite consideration with the density,
the location of this, the intensity of the existing use, are definite factors in lowering the
density of this development. We proposed that the city judiciously apply their own
guidance, the intensity of the use, the underlying zoning, surrounding land use, the
location of the property, and transportation issues. In consideration of this, guidance
from the adjacent views, lower the land density, land use density, consistent with land
use surrounding Shepherd's Creek, which is 2.6 homes per acre. Other issues we have
are home values. The values of homes in Shepherd's Creek -- or, excuse me, in Bear
Creek range from 350,000 all the way up to 900,000. The increased density we feel
would lower -- would negatively impact the values of Bear Creek homes and to maintain
our property value, we feel that the less density and -- would help in that -- in that
manner. Actions. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Bear
Creek. Reconfigure and add usable green space. Drainage is an issue. Bear Creek is
generally lower in elevation than the adjacent property. We want to assure that the site
and the drainage plans address containment within the development. We didn't see
anything in the ACHD report, we didn't see anything in the Meridian Planning and
Zoning report addressing drainage, so we would like to see something that addresses
that. Again, actions -- recommend that we require a drainage pond that addresses
containment and management of all the runoff within the development. Open space
and parks. Shepherd's Creek has minimal usable, it's all pass-through, it's landscape
medians, limited value. If that were reconfigured and all put together in one location, it
would be much more functional and usable and add value to the development.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 19 of 86
Recommendations. Required the redesign of the open space. Locate the leftover
spaces collectively. Just stated that. Provide amenities that are usable. A tot lot.
Great idea. Bear Creek residents should not be expected to bear the burden of
providing amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development. Requires CCRs for
Shepherd's Creek that are consistent or equal to those established for Bear Creek.
Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish a homeowners association or to join Bear
Creek. There is no street tree plantings proposed within the entire development, only
limited. If property values are to be maintained, then, at a minimum there should be
street trees within the development. Recommendations require street trees and median
plantings throughout the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision, but at a minimum require
transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads, so it reflects the adjacent character
and quality of our neighborhood. I'm at the end. We request that the Meridian Planning
and Zoning give careful and informed consideration to the issues that we have raised
tonight for the 243 people that have signed this petition. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Are there any questions of this person that gave this testimony?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time.
Borup: Just a couple. I had several written down, but most of them have been
answered as the presentation went on. But maybe just a clarification for my end that
may affect the other, but several of your comments were there was concern there was
no outlet to the primary road. I assume that your proposal for that was the access to
Meridian Road that was on the south -- south side of this? That was your proposed
answer to that? Okay.
McGordon: The Miestra-Alfini Way outlet.
Borup: Okay. The other may be a comment and that was on -- you were assuming that
the 8,200 traffic volume on Kodiak. That would be one hundred percent of all the traffic
from all seven subdivisions --
McGordon: That's correct.
Borup: And that is, obviously, a very false assumption, that a hundred percent of all
seven subdivisions would travel down Kodiak. I don't know what that answer would be,
but, obviously, it's not that figure. You know, a traffic engineer would show that, that
that would not happen at a build out.
McGordon: We concur with that, but just showing potentially what the local area
generates.
Borup: But not down that street.
McGordon: No, not down that street directly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 20 of 86
Borup: And I didn't understand your comments on Proposition 2 on how that even
affected anything here.
McGordon: Well, yes, in the--
Borup: Other than that by denying this project they would be the ones that would have
maybe grounds to sue.
McGordon: Well, I think the concerns that were raised yesterday at the ACHD meeting
were that if this collector street went through and it had impacts on the existing Kodiak,
people whose property value along that --
Borup: Right. Proposition 2 had to do with eminent domain.
McGordon: No. It also has a section on taking based on city and county governments,
establishments of zoning and ordinances.
Borup: Okay.
McGordon: There is a copy of Prop 2 in the folder for you.
Borup: Yeah. I read the section you had underlined.
McGordon: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I mean that is a proposal on the ballot. It
doesn't have any impact on that. I think it's just for illustrative purposes is why it's raised
as testimony, but it is not the law in Idaho and the law as applied in other states don't
relate to what this presentation is talking about, it relates to the property owner, who is
the applicant, as Councilmember -- or as Commissioner Borup has stated, it would
apply to the applicant, not necessarily to everyone else that might live along the street
or anything else and that's how it's been applied in other states, but it isn't the law here,
so it is just for illustrative purposes for the sake of the record.
Borup: And that's what I had understood, too. Maybe just a clarification on the
comment on open space. You talked a lot about redesigning here. Is there any usable
open space in Bear Creek? I'm not aware of any tot lots or --
McGordon: No, there is no tot lots, but the Bear Creek developer gave the park.
Borup: Right. That's the city park.
McGordon: Right.
Borup: Okay. And that's what I thought. There is no usable open space in Bear Creek
at all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 21 of 86
McGordon: The open space are the connecting pathways that go from the different
blocks to the --
Borup: Right. But you spent a lot of time talking about usable space.
McGordon: Right.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had.
Rohm: I think as opposed to going down through the list of names that have signed up
to speak, by all means, anybody that has something additional to say is welcome to and
I think I will just take them one at a time if there is --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record you do need to go through the list.
If the spokesperson has spoken for them, you can check that off and they -- but you do
need to go through that for the purpose of the record.
Rohm: Okay. I'll go through. Austin? Has been spoken for. Ann Croy? Been spoken
for. Eleanor James. Been spoken for. Rodney Larkey. Been spoken for. Leslie
Madsen? You may come forward, please.
Madsen: My name is Leslie Madsen and I live at 465 Kodiak and I do confirm mainly
what has already been said in issue with Bear Creek, but I would invite each of you to
go into Bear Creek, if you haven't already, and drive around Kodiak and some of those
very curvy streets. I have some real concerns as a homeowner, because I feel like
there was some deception with my developer if, indeed, this becomes a collector street,
which it was not originally designed for. And so I do support all of the arguments that
have been given this evening. But I would invite you to come to Bear Creek and I would
invite you to think about your own homes and where you are and if you're living on a
quiet street and built your home there for that purpose, that you wonder how you would
feel if that suddenly became a main connector. I don't think it has the characteristics
that we need to have as a connector street, which has been supported by ACHD
already. And so I just want you to know that as a homeowner we are very concerned
about the change of complexion of our development if this does, indeed, take place.
So, come and see us in Bear Creek.
Rohm: Before you step away from the microphone I'd like to just offer a comment and
all three of the developments surrounding this 12 acres all have stub streets into this 12
acres and I think that it should have been understood that that's what those stub streets
were for, that there will be additional development and there will be additional traffic on
the roads and we, as a planning and zoning commission, try to encourage
interconnectivity between developments, as opposed to having each individual
development have its own access to -- of the main thoroughfares.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 . 2006
Page 22 of 86
Madsen: And I am not opposed to any of the development of Shepherd -- Valley
Shepherd or whatever it is. I understand that that was going to be developed. There
are the stub streets. What I have a concern about is connecting Meridian Road with
Stoddard, which is already an access road between Overland and Victory Road and as
Matt has pointed out, I believe that the Ten Mile connector on the interstate is going to
take away a lot of the traffic that comes along Overland, leaving those free for more
access for the school traffic and so on that will be needed on Stoddard. So, when we
get that interchange, which has been promised a long time ago, hopefully, that will take
all the people that come from the northern Meridian area and travel Overland, that little
leg of Overland. But, thank you, I just wanted to --
Borup: Ma'am, I -- a clarification question.
Madsen: Yes.
Borup: You said you felt that maybe your developer had deceived you? Could you
elaborate on that?
Madsen: Well, because when -- first of all, when we built our home, the ground behind
us was going to be church property and --
Borup: No, but how does he have any control over that?
Madsen: No, the deception is not so much in that, because it would have had to have
been a very huge building to occupy all of that space and so the development I have no
problem with. The deception is that if this now becomes a busy thoroughfare along
Kodiak when it was a quiet residential road, it, to me, is a deception.
Borup: How would it be a deception?
Madsen: Well, it's unfair, then, let's say, for the city --
Borup: Oh, so you expected that the developer would have known four years ago that
this was going to happen today?
Madsen: No. I guess I -- if that was approved. Then, maybe it's not the developer's
deception, I guess it's the city's deception if you approve one plan and, then, change the
plan and I'm just asking that you consider very carefully that -- if you change that
configuration of those streets to make it a collector street that does affect a lot of them.
Rohm: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I know all the Commissioners are aware of this, but since the last
speaker brought it up, while the matter is pending you can't go out there to the site and
go view the streets and drive through the subdivision. The Idaho Supreme Court has
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 23 of 86
prohibited that type of action. So, just for you and for the other applicants to understand
that while this matter is pending you can't do that.
Borup: I have done that many times already, though.
Nary: But as -- but for the purposes of making a decision for this project you aren't able
to do that, so --
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I'll quit as well. Okay. The next name on the list is Randy
McGordon. You have been spoken for or would you like to speak? Okay. Shawna
Mitztra? She's been spoken for. Chad Whipple. Joel Hammer. Would you like to
come forward, please?
Hammer: Commissioners, my name is Joel Hammer, I live at 327 West Cave Bear
Court in the Bear Creek Subdivision. Just a few comments. I agree with what has been
presented as far as from the homeowners association in relationship to the collector
road. I, too, am against it and would not support that. I think the only point where I
disagree with them is on the density as far as within the subdivision itself. I am not
opposed to the density as far as it's being proposed by the developer. I think that a
development with mixed densities in there, such as a Tuscany or other developments
like that, creates a strong community environment, as well as providing opportunities for
all to come and live within the confines of that development. I don't believe that the
homes themselves are going to be a value hinderment to the Bear Creek Subdivision.
Based on land prices, based on appreciation rates and so forth, I believe that the homes
there will be -- again, as the developer stated, somewhere in the 300,000 range, entry
level, as well as with the larger lots I think that you are going to see some large values
within the homes. And so I do not believe that it's going to hurt my home value or the
values of other Bear Creek residents within this development itself. Again, I believe that
a mixed -- a mixed site within lots is healthy for an environment. I think it's healthy for a
community. I think it allows different ranges of income and of other areas to be able to
come into the development and, again, we are not talking substandard here, these are
going to be nice homes and these are going to be homes that are going to have value
within the community and are not going to be at the low end, they are still going to be a
mid range to a high end home within this development. That's all I have to say.
Rohm: Thank you.
Mae: Mr. Chairman? I'm curious. What do you do for a living?
Hammer: What I do for a living is I develop.
Mae: Thank you.
Hammer: For a portion of that. I mean I also have other businesses along with that.
Mae: Appreciate that very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 24 of 86
Rohm: Okay. Good question. Okay. Tim Graver. Been represented. Carolyn Seagle.
She's been spoken for. And Carolyn Smith. Been spoken for. Did I miss anybody? I
do have Ray Schild.
Schild: I'm an attorney for the developer. I'll speak during rebuttal.
Rohm: That's why I bypassed you earlier. I assumed that was the -- that is all the
people that were on the list, but if there is anybody else that would like to come forward
to speak to this matter, now is the time. Okay. Before we get to the rebuttal, we are
going to take a short break. Thank you. About ten minutes.
(Recess.)
Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and before we go any further I'd like the record to
reflect that Commissioner Borup is in the attendance tonight and that's noted and --
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Before we have rebuttal I'd like to ask staff one other question. I was curious in
the earlier testimony it was made note that -- that the Bear Creek group supported the
alternative access that ACHD had proposed. In this report there was an alternative that
-- okay.
Hood: Let me explain that a little bit. They originally supported an alternative access
and I can show you on this -- again, two weeks ago they required the applicant to build
the street over -- let's see. Where is Miestra. And connect with Miestra, which currently
ends like somewhere in here. So, that would have been the fourth access point. The
applicant, as was mentioned, asked ACHD to reconsider that action and, in fact,
yesterday they reversed or overturned their original action and did not require that. So,
in effect, what you're looking at here is what ACHD approved. Their other change was
that they extend this stub street over and cul-de-sac it onto this site. That's my
understanding. I have not seen that in writing from ACHD, but that's the other change, I
guess, that they made yesterday.
Mae: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Well, to expand on that before we go to rebuttal, if, in fact, they extend that stub
to the east and left the cul-de-sac there, is it not possible to tie that into Meridian Road
at a later date?
Hood: It would be. That is assuming that this -- a portion of this church redevelops in
the future and there is some feasibility of that. I mean they have some -- a large portion
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 25 of 86
down here that they -- I don't know the church's master plan for the 20 acres they are
retaining. There is some potential I see to do a similar thing and subdivide it again and
potentially split some of this off. Something else that I think -- since we started talking
about bad accesses is just a point to note is that the church does not even tie into the
subdivision that's proposed here and people that are living here that may attend the
church have to drive in their cars and drive through an adjacent subdivision just to get to
church and to that end as well, if you look at the people exiting church, will have to drive
through Strada Bellissima to get out to go anywhere and, in fact, they can't just use
Miestra in the future, because that's supposed to be restricted to right-in, right-out.
They have to drive through a residential subdivision to get out to the light at Victory. So,
you have not even interconnectivity amongst the subdivision. And I'm sorry I didn't call
that out earlier, but it's a good point by ACHO that, you know, you're not even providing
that interconnectivity amongst your own lots, so -- it's something that -- to ponder,
anyway, and to think about, too, which isn't called out in the staff report, but something
that --
Rohm: Where is the church going to exit currently?
Hood: Oh, let's go the other way. So, the church -- this is their driveway here. So, this
is the one and only access point they have. They will come down and today you can
turn out on Miestra and make a left or right turn. The approval for this access point
given by ITO in 2004 or '5, I believe it was, with the approval of Strada Bellissima, was
conditioned that this shall be restricted to right-in, right-out. Now, that hasn't happened
as of today, but the permit granting for this access says right-in, right-out. So, that, in
effect, turns everyone in this subdivision again, to have to go down Strada Bellissima,
church patrons, in and out -- you know, they could come in still, I guess. You could still
right-in if you're coming -- heading south, but that is the dominant movement today.
Again, in the future it would be down all the way half mile to get a signalized
intersection.
Rohm: And there is no access off of Meridian Road into the --
Hood: Correct. No access.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we go to the rebuttal at
this time --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I was just curious, what would be the point of the cul-de-sac
-- I mean I know you're trying to build homes around it on the church property.
Hood: I think the intent of that -- and, again, someone that was there may clarify, but if I
understand correctly -- I mean it's either you have a stub and if it's not going to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 26 of 86
extended, make it a turnaround, you know, so it's not forever just a stub hanging out
there. I'm not quite sure why they didn't just make it a loop and chop off that whole
thing. If they aren't having the street go out, I'm not quite sure. But that would be my
guess. I don't --
Newton-Huckabay: Some effort to make it look finished.
Hood: Exactly. That's what I would --
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come back up, please.
Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska, representing the
applicant. If I could start with Caleb's comments first while they are still fresh in my
mind, because I didn't write them down as thoroughly as I did the testimony before.
Start with the first thing of that stub street. He is correct, the very end of the -- of the
recommendation there was a little confusion from ACHD about that. I talked to her
afterwards and we are going to round that off right there, because it is a stub street
that's only 90 feet long. We have done it in a few other places. Make it look permanent.
There is no need for a turnaround if you're less than 150. So, there was a little
confusion. Staff -- Lori Hartog, planning development director, has agreed to -- not
officially in writing, but we have talked about just doing it that way and -- that's not
working right.
Rohm: I have got another one right here.
Schultz: I have got one, too. Just to round the sidewalk -- extend the sidewalk to --
extend the right of way there that -- if something changes, which I don't see happening,
but let's just say something changes that, you know, it could go through. It wouldn't
change a thing, but for now it looks finished. And it is pedestrian and we could connect
fire and emergency there. As far as church patrons driving around -- you know, I drive
to church, it -- it's not very far at all. Pretty quick trip, actually. Not to go out on the main
road is pretty convenient. And that's how -- I know how the church leaders feel about it,
it's a lot better than their downtown location that people have to drive to. It could be
convenient if anybody happens to live in the neighborhood or the surrounding
neighborhoods for that. Back to the alternate access, just to clarify. Caleb is correct, at
the initial ACHD hearing the commissioners were seeking a compromise and they didn't
have enough information to really evaluate the fourth access. I mean we have three
accesses for 55 lots. I showed them that there is about a 20 second jog in here that's
different than that. You know, it doesn't add any appreciable drive time reduction. If
anything, it does provide a little jog, which I think is beneficial. I know I live up in Bear
Creek where I drive further than these people will and I find it very convenient where I
live near Meridian Road. So, I don't see this as any great reduction. And once ACHD
saw the numbers, they saw the facts a little bit better, they said, oh, yeah, you're right,
we don't need that. Three accesses is plenty. In fact, these three accesses, based on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 27 of 86
our traffic study, would handle 150 homes. Not that that would be politically advisable
to propose that many, but, technically, it would. So, we are way under any warrants
with those three accesses for the traffic. I'm going to dive into -- as quick as I can, but
still to be as thorough as I can with the very thorough and professional presentation that
was done by the homeowners association. I do appreciate them showing up. I'm not
going to belabor the collector point anymore. I think everybody is unanimously opposed
to that to be built now. Or, really, ever, in my opinion, but somebody could change their
mind later. Like Joe Hammer said, these price ranges, based on his experience doing
other developments, are going to be 300 plus, just like Kimberly said Bear Creek is.
This is not going to be any different, the lots will be a little narrower, the architecture
may be a little skinnier, a little bit deeper, a little hallow, but you still have the same
square footage homes -- or close. You're not going to have the 6,000s like we have
with South Bear Creek, but you're still going to have the same -- as much as you need.
We do have pedestrian walkways. We do have lighted streets. Meets standards just
like Bear Creek. The density is different, like I said, but we do believe it's a transitional
density, it blends in perfectly, it does provide a mix. And when you look at the bigger
section of Strada Bellissima, Elk Run, Bear Creek, it is all one big subdivision, really,
interconnected. The density is about 2.6. With our addition they go to 2.7. We are not
drastically changing the bigger neighborhood that we are coming into. It's a very slight
slight increase of density. A distinct and separate entrance. We are kind of
geographically limited to have a distinctive separate entrance. If we were close to a
main road we would have one. With our three stub streets we think we are more than
covered. We do -- like I said previously, we had -- the way Meridian planning and
zoning ordinance calculates usable open space, we have six and a half percent. Bear
Creek has three percent, if you exclude the city park, which was separate from the rests
of them. Strada Bellissima has three percent. Elk Run has zero usable open space,
because that was done back in the mid '90s when there was no ordinance. So, we
exceed on the way it's calculated. Now, it may not look like much, but we are only 12
acres. We do exceed the requirements of anything in the neighborhood for open space.
And it is -- it's usable. We are going to put a playground in there. We didn't originally.
We will revise the landscape plan to add that before we go to City Council and make it
more usable than it was before. There was a comment about a burden on Bear Creek.
I see Bear Creek -- can you go back to an overall? Yeah. That works. I see Bear
Creek residents driving out right now through Strada when I drive home a night. Not
everybody is going to go this way, some people are going to -- we all share these public
roads. We all -- they are built to standards that allow parking, they are plenty wide, you
know, we have got to watch out for the kids. I mean if there is one house or 50 houses,
we have got to be careful when we drive, obey the speed limit, but we all share these
roads and we are not a burden on anyone subdivision, we are -- it's very well dispersed
with our three stub streets. The petition -- you know, they only got -- they got less than
half the homeowners. I do appreciate their -- their getting organized and I do appreciate
her participation, but -- but -- I'll just skip right on passed that. The lot -- she says she
liked lot size more than home value. Not everybody wants lot size more than home
value. Everybody has a different -- we think we have some of each. We have lot size
and we have some that are smaller lot size, but still a good home value. Drainage
issues. This is about 20 feet higher than this. There is a drain that goes through the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 28 of 86
middle. We are going to put that underground. You know, I left working for Bear Creak
when this was just getting started, Bear Creek Seven, and I think they didn't finish this
property line too well, so that rear line -- there is a little low -- I think when the farmer
was irrigating this in the meantime some of that drainage may have ponded back there.
I'm not sure. I know when we come in we are going to look at that real closely to see
what we can do to -- obviously, we are going to -- they are not going to farm it anymore,
we are not going to be flood irrigating, but also to see what we can do to help the
situation that we didn't create, but we will try to fix, if there is a problem there. That's
just some of the comments I have heard at the neighborhood meeting, but this is an
issue right along here. The elevationwise, it's 20 feet from up here to down here. There
is a pretty big slope. CC&Rs. We are going to have some strong CC&Rs out. I don't
believe it's a full requirement that we debate those. It's a private enforcement issue.
We are striving to have a lot of the same builders that built in Bear Creek, maybe some
different ones. At that price point we have got to do nice things, we have got to enforce
the architecture and just not let anybody build anything they want and that's our goal.
As far as joining, I don't see that happening right away. It could happen later after we
get built and those homeowners could join their buddies across the fence if they wanted
to, but that would be their choice after we get it up and built out. The alternate routes --
we have got Calderwood, Miestra, Alfini, Grisly, Kodiak, Christopher -- I think there is six
or seven routes out to major arterials within a half mile. It's really exceptional if you look
at it compared to some other areas of town. But we do have good alternate access, we
do have good emergency access. As far as the traffic increase, it's a five percent
increase in traffic, compared to what's already there today, with the 550 lots, going up to
about 600. Again, I already commented on the density increase being 1/1oth of a
percent. As far as notification of that ACHD hearing, they were well prepared for ACHD.
They found out, they presented their paint well. I don't think they lost anything by -- we
didn't try to get anything by them, we were just trying to clarify a certain issue and I
guess we forgot to notify them, but they showed up and were very effective in making
their point known at ACHD. The fire and emergency access, we haven't had any
specific recommendations from fire and emergency access. We have heard some
vague concerns. We believe that this location here, if you look at its distance, is
superior to some locations up in here, like where I live, but I still have great access.
There is some areas over here, you get the line back in, they still have good access. I
really don't see this as any major deficiency to emergency access. However, if we need
to connect an additional emergency access back here we could. We have allowed for
that. We haven't heard that recommendation yet, but we have allowed for it as it comes
forward. We have -- we have added the tot lot. As far as street trees, if you want to
plant -- to have detached sidewalk with street trees, it requires a 62 foot right of way
these days. That's what ACHD went to. We don't have room, but we will be providing
street trees in the yards, just like Bear Creek has. And we are not going to not -- it's
shown on our landscape plan, but those are required with -- with the lots per the
CC&Rs. As a developer we require at least two in the bigger lots, at least one in the
smaller ones, in the shrubs and everything else. It makes that streetscape look good.
You know, I could speak to Leslie Madsen's note on the deception issue. I know I
worked for Greg Johnson on the original and nobody ever ever thought that this
collector would come about. I remember having specific discussions about, heck, no,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 29 of 86
we are not going to have any access here, at City Council just a few years ago. So, it's
really kind of come back full circle, so it was a real surprise for me when I took this on to
see that it was back and it wasn't going away very easy. But I do appreciate staff's
planning for the potential for a light there. That may be totally appropriate once you see
what's going on over here. They are really access challenged on this side of the road,
because they don't have any mid mile collector behind them and they don't have any
stub streets. So, this might warrant a signal there. I think it's just -- that's fine. Put a
signal there. ITD will let you. Just don't connect it to Bear Creek and I think that's the
main concern. I do appreciate, you know, the amount that responded, 14 different
people said what they wanted and they were very thorough. I do believe we have a
good mix. The mix is good. The R-8 is not an adverse zoning. It could have been if we
would have crammed 66 lots in there, which would be the maximum I could have got
with an R-8. We went with a compromise. This does reflect a compromise, I think, in
the initial design. I don't like to get up and jam as many as I can and try to negotiate at
the podium, because that could go south on you real quick if you try that route, although
some guys might try it. But we have put the thought into it and hope that you will
support it as proposed, with the accesses as proposed, and move us forward to City
Council with your recommendation, with the respectful, you know, recommendation for
R-8, even though staff did recommend an R-4, we believe with the lot -- with the size of
lots we are dealing with, an R-4 does allow a 64 foot wide lot, it just needs to be deeper.
We don't have the luxury of depth on this site, so 4.5 to the acre is just very very slightly
over the four that's allowed with R-4. So, I think we are really close and I hope that
works for you and we can move forward with your recommendation. So, thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: It just came to me -- it was on your comments concerning the R-8 and R-4. Has
there been any preliminary decisions on square footage sizes that would be in your
CC&Rs?
Schultz: Honestly, no. If I could speculate as to what those would be, though, I -- on
those 50-foot lots what we have been seeing in other areas, the minimum you get down
to is 1,400, but you're seeing more 1,600, 1,800, up to 24 hundred, 25, on the 50 foot
lots. The single story, if -- every once in awhile you get somebody -- like I have got a
gentleman -- my grandmother, she just wanted a 1,400 square foot home. That was
plenty for her. And you will find people like that --
Borup: And that's what I was wondering, the minimum on the R-4 is 1,400.
Schultz: And there is no minimum on R-8, is that what you're saying? We could live
with that 1,400 minimum that is in the R-4, if that's what you're asking. We could say
yes to that, if that could be part of your recommendation. We haven't -- we could use
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 30 of 86
that as a guideline for our decision to move forward and that's not going to be a
hindrance to us.
Borup: Okay. I just wanted your input on that.
Schultz: Thanks.
Rohm: Thank you. That's a lot to digest. And I want to thank each of you for a very
well orchestrated presentation and a lot of good thoughts went into that. Let's do a little
poll here. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts on this before we --
Zaremba: I have a whole range of thoughts.
Rohm: I'll bet you do.
Zaremba: And I do appreciate all of the presentations that have been made. They
have been very thorough and informative. I have not yet been convinced, though, that
staff is wrong. I feel that staff is absolutely correct. One of the things that was
mentioned is that we don't want to turn South Meridian Road into another North Eagle
Road. The difficulty with that is the traffic that is on Eagle Road is not necessarily
Meridian city traffic. A lot of it is from our surrounding communities accessing the
interstate. The same thing will be happening with this lower section of Meridian Road.
As Kuna grows and even as more of Meridian grows, the impact when the sewer finally
goes through and development really takes off down there -- we haven't seen anything
yet, when development really happens down here, this section of Meridian Road is
going to look like Eagle Road looks now from the traffic. What we have learned from
Eagle Road is that having access in odd places doesn't work for the traffic flow. It is no
surprise that the City of Meridian has a development along the interstate and along
state highways ordinance that was adopted sometime ago. When the CUP for this
property came in earlier, they provided the collector road on it. I don't believe the City of
Meridian told them they had to, they offered it. We had some discussion about it and I
don't feel at this point it's been phrased that the planning and zoning staff or the
Commission has created this collector road out of nowhere. It has always been on the
plan back when we talked about annexing we talked that there would be a collector road
there. When the applicant -- or at least the church applicant brought their CUP forward
to build the church building, it had the collector road on their drawing. There wasn't any
question that it was going to be there. It provided two directions of access for the
church. Now, what the collector does -- and there seems to be an assumption that all
the collector is going to do is allow traffic in. It will also allow traffic out and I believe the
people that already live in this area will use it, as well as anybody that needs to access
this new subdivision, if it's approved. It will be usable. What is not being emphasized --
and we haven't seen it on Eagle Road yet, but the Eagle Road corridor plan is medians
down the middle of Eagle Road, preventing left turns everywhere except the half mile.
That will eventually happen on Meridian Road. There is not going to be full access to
any road, other than at the half mile. We have talked about focusing these people on a
road that comes out of the quarter mile. That's not going to be effective ten or fifteen
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 . 2006
Page 31 of 86
years from now, because that will be a right-in, right-out only, as will the other road a
little farther north. These will be right-in, right-out. Anything here or down here will be
right-in, right-out. The only way for development along the state highway to have
access is at the half mile point or at the section line roads, which is already there. And
I'm not sure if people are visualizing what impact that is going to have and,
unfortunately, ITD has delayed the Eagle corridor -- actual construction of it. They have
all the plans, but they have put off the construction of it, because I think it would be
helpful to actually have that and see how it operates, because that same situation will
apply here. I still feel it's necessary to have the collector there. I'm not as convinced
that people will go around the circuitous two or three turns to make Kodiak part of that
collector. Collectors sometimes are very short. They get passed the church and I'm not
sure traffic will continue to go the circuitous route to go farther, but it does function in
two directions in this area and to give it up I think sometime in the not too distant future,
will seriously impede traffic flow not only for the current developments, but for future
developments there. So, I'm not opposed to housing mix. I think that's a good idea.
We have had testimony on previous hearings when there was an existing subdivision of
a certain density and a new subdivision was going to go in next to it with maybe a little
higher mix of densities and the testimony has been that it would ruin property values.
We have had enough of those now that some of them are actually built and operating
and gone through resale market and they have not damaged the property values
around. As a matter of fact, they have made the communities very attractive. As the
person who admitting to being in the development community said, having a mix of
housing in a neighborhood allows different types of people to be in the neighborhood.
So, I don't have a problem with the size and shape of the proposal. I do have a problem
with losing the collector access and I don't feel this is a surprise that P&Z is putting on
this applicant, it's been the subject all along. It has always been there. It's the applicant
who has said, uh, we don't want to do it. And that part of it I think is wrong.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Yeah. I guess my comments would be addressed to two areas, one on the
collector road and the other on the subdivision itself. I'm -- I'm not seeing the necessity
of a collector road today. I think there is enough -- obviously, there is a lot in testimony,
but I'm not worried about today, I mean we are supposed to be -- one of the things we
are supposed to be -- I mean this is a planning -- that's in our name, planning
commission, and I have heard too many times over the last decade about what were
you thinking about -- when it wasn't us -- but, you know, what was the city thinking about
ten years ago or 20 years ago to let something like that happen. That's -- and you can't
always -- you can't always look to the future and know what's going to happen. But I
think we have got enough experience on Eagle Road, being probably the experience,
on what is going to happen and my concern is not today and whether it needs it today,
but what's going to be needed 20 years from now. Twenty years from now I may not be
riding on this -- driving down this street, but I have children and grandchildren that will
want to. So, I would be -- and I don't know how this is going to be worked out and I do
not feel it needs to be built today, but the other alternative could be some type of
preservation of right of the way, whether it's in a deeded -- a deeded common lot or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 32 of 86
whatever and I -- that would need to be worked out by someone that knows a lot more
about it, but that's a proposal that I would be in favor of, but I'm not in favor of
eliminating that possibility for all time. Comments on the subdivision -- and I agree with
Commissioner Zaremba, our past experience over the last decade has not shown -- I
don't think anyone can point out a single situation where property values decreased by
a different density subdivision going in. It just -- it has not happened. If someone could
show that, I would certainly be open to looking at that data, but I don't believe it exists.
Lot size variety, there is some benefit to having some variety. My first impression was I
would have liked to have seen it all complying with the R-4, but there is a variety -- I
mean there is a number of lot sizes there. I think the transition is good. I also look at
this as an overall community -- you know, as far as the tie in, it's not a lot different than if
this subdivision -- if these 12 acres would have been part of the original Bear Creek, you
know, it would have all been -- had those stub streets tying in and everything. I would
be in favor of -- if we leave the lot sizes as they are, I think a good compromise would
be a 1,400 square foot minimum. That is the minimum size for an R-4 zone. I know
there are homes in Bear Creek down as small as 1,500 feet and more than likely that
will be the minimum size that's going in here anyway, because I think Bear Creek had a
1,400 minimum also. That's the end of my comments.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have got a question. Dave -- so the collector was on the
annexation application with the church? Is that what you were --
Zaremba: Annexation applications don't actually have them, it was in the CUP that
came -- earlier this year --
Newton-Huckabay: I believe it all comes together, the annexation and --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the annexation actually was
approved in 2000 and the Conditional Use Permit for the church was approved just
this --
Newton-Huckabay: Just this last year.
Hood: Yeah. This last spring or--
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hood: -- late winter.
Zaremba: Earlier this year.
Newton-Huckabay: And it had the collector on it then?
Hood: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 33 of 86
Borup: At the same location as --
Hood: Generally the same location, yes. It's never been fully said it needs to be right
exactly at this location, but there was a roadway shown on that site plan, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Was that -- and you're saying it was disputed, then, by--
Zaremba: No. It has never been disputed as far as I know. It was just --
Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember that either.
Zaremba: -- offered by them in their CUP and we have always assumed it would be
there.
Borup: Well, I think the other thing -- is my recollection there -- they did not include it,
but they did a concept plan for the whole site and was showing some residential use
back there. There was talk whether it be kind of a retirement center with -- with patio
homes or -- but there were some -- some multi -- multi-family and detached housing, if I
remember right. But it was just a conceptual plan, it wasn't part of the actual application
I don't believe.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember any patio homes.
Borup: And this was way back in -- I think at the annexation time.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. With the patio homes.
Borup: Yeah. I mean it was small lots -- real small lots and, then, some multi-family
type of dwellings also.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I wasn't on the committee--
Borup: It was not part of the approval, it was just a conceptual plan that they were --
that they presented at the meeting.
Zaremba: But my recollection on that was that the church would retain ownership and
the purpose of it was, essentially, for senior church members. It was not sold to a
separate entity.
Borup: I think so.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so it was kind of like a retirement community type --
Borup: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 34 of 86
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's -- this is a tough situation. I don't -- I still have
some thinking to do on this. I don't want to have anymore comments at this time by me.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Start coming this way next time, okay? All the comments are taken care of.
Quite frankly, when I first started reviewing this project and, number one, in regard to
the collector, when it was noted that it was a disputed roadway, I, too, remember that,
basically, when the church came in that road was there. I never anticipated there was
any dispute to it, I anticipated that that road would go in. So, therefore, I was a little bit
surprised there. In regard to the -- the R-4 on the Camp Plan and whatnot, you know,
everywhere it's noted as to be the R-4 there. I do believe the applicant has done some
decent transition in those lots next to the Bear Creek area that will take care of, you
know, my concerns in regards to it going to an R-8 and I do agree with Commissioner
Borup if, in fact, we go that route it would probably be a good idea to have the 1,400
square foot minimum on that -- on that house size noted in that. A couple comments --
you know, I have been a little bit surprised for the simple fact I, too, think that the
collector road, quite frankly, would be very beneficial to the Bear Creek, for the simple
fact is that I ride Overland Road every morning and I am the one that's way backed up
onto Linder Road waiting for everybody from Bear Creek to get out and everywhere else
and traffic needs to disperse. I am concerned as far as Kodiak, how it does wind
around. I'm going to anticipate that you're not going to see as much traffic -- I, too,
agree with Commissioner Zaremba that I don't think once Overland Road is widened
you're going to see more traffic taken through that route as well and, therefore, I don't
see that you're going to see this collector being used as much as everyone may think. I
am quite surprised that ACHD doesn't want to see this roadway go through and,
actually, I'm looking forward to reading that report, quite frankly. But I guess that's
about alii have say to say right now.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Mae. I have a question for legal counsel. In
reference to the CUP that was originally granted that shows the collector road on it,
even though there wasn't specific right of way dedicated at that point in time, is there a
requirement that if, in fact, this new subdivision is stubbed to the remaining property that
the church would have to take it the balance of the way to Meridian Road via their CUP?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd have to look at the conditions,
but I would guess that they probably don't address that. They may have had that on
their concept plan as some potential conceptual future use, but without seeing the
actual approval and the findings, I'm going to guess it probably wasn't required at the
time. I think it may have been a discussion point, but, remember, that this is an
amendment to an existing development agreement. So, if it's within the purview of the
Commission to grant approval based on the conditions of whether it's a stub street,
whether it's a dedicated -- it's a dedicated lot, whether it's the cul-de-sac that's
proposed, whether it's emergency access, whatever those conditions, this Commission
feels is appropriate, if your desire is to grant approval, is all within your discretion to
recommend to the City Council. If you -- as some of you have stated, you don't see the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 35 of 86
necessity to build out that street today, but to just preserve that right of way ability in the
future through some sort of dedicated common lot or some other form, you can do that.
If the applicant doesn't wish to do that, then, they don't -- then, they don't necessarily
have to agree to that amendment and they don't have to agree to amend the
development agreement to allow for this. There is no entitlement currently to build this
subdivision as proposed without that amendment to the development agreement. But
there. isn't anything that I can think of that was probably requiring that if -- if an
application for residential property was going to be on this parcel in the rear part that
they would, then, be required to construct a roadway. You would have to make that a
condition of this development agreement and those recommendations would, then, go
forward to the City Council for their final decision.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to add onto what Mr. Nary has talked about, a little help
with the CUP that was approved last year. The reason that that wasn't dedicated at that
time is it would take a subdivision to dedicate the roadway or you are, in fact, splitting
property by having a road bisect the southern part from the northern part. So, in that
staff report it talks about when this back piece develops it all needs to come in as a
subdivision so we can get the road dedicated to the public, so -- and, in effect, what it
did was say we realize you aren't platting today, but you're going to have to, because
the collector roadway is going to bisect your property and that's how you split property is
you do a subdivision and build streets and so that's, again, kind of how that evolved.
And there is some analysis in the staff report that's actually in this staff report that I
copied and pasted about just that, you know, the collector roadway is here, to get the
collector roadway is you plat it, therefore, when you plat this the church gets platted,
too, and you get the road. So, that's just to kind of finish up now what Mr. Nary said
also about the develop agreement, you know, that's just kind of some history for you,
too, because I think that's where your questions originated from, Commissioner Rohm,
was how come is there a condition in the CUP for the church for this roadway and not
explicitly, but that's implied with the preliminary plat, because that's the road that they
were showing there. The only way to dedicate right of way, again, is with a plat.
Borup: And, Caleb, the site -- the site design that was submitted and approved with that
CU did show access at that location.
Hood: Approximately. I didn't compare the CU site plan to --
Borup: But it was up at the north end of the property.
Hood: Yes. Generally in the same location. Yes.
Zaremba: And I remember a discussion was what do you do with the little piece that's
north of the road, how is it going to be landscaped and the discussion, essentially, was,
well, when they come in with a plat, then, we need to talk about the landscape plan. But
I don't remember any doubt that that road was going to be there. We did discuss it at
length.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 36 of 86
Rohm: Well, it seems to me--
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have --
Rohm: Oh, you're ready. Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was curious, the Kodiak has always been -- at the half mile would
have been predominately on the half mile when Bear Creek was built and did we not
consider -- I mean the city, I believe, in defense of everything the homeowners have
said, considered that they might want a collector there some day when we were putting
that development together. So, I do think that the homeowners have a very valid
argument from my standpoint there. I was curious when -- was it Sadie Creek and
Kohl's -- was Sadie Creek south of where they are putting the Kohl's on Eagle? What's
that called? Sadie Creek?
Zaremba: Eagle and Ustick.
Nary: Sadie Creek. Bienville.
Newton-Huckabay: Bienville. Okay. We had recommended full access collector type
roadways at the quarter mile because of missing the boat, so to speak. What was the
resolution on that? I don't know what the City Council's vote was on that.
Zaremba: Caleb probably could answer that better, but my recollection is they did not
take our recommendation.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was thinking.
Hood: They did allow just -- ITO's permit board and chief engineer over there, boy, just
maybe in the last week or two weeks ago approved the one access at 880 feet south of
Ustick Road to Eagle Road, shared by Bienville and Sadie Creek. I don't remember that
part of it.
Nary: Mr. Chairman --
Hood: Okay. I'm sorry.
Nary: Go ahead.
Hood: Temporary full and, then, it will be restricted to right-out in the future.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that was the City Council's
recommendation was a full access at 880 feet to be full access until the access at
Ustick Road came, but it was a shared access at 880 feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 37 of 86
Newton-Huckabay: So, it was only temporary, though.
Nary: Temporary full.
Newton-Huckabay: Temporary full.
Nary: It will become right-in, right-out --
Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out.
Nary: -- when there is access to Ustick.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we have -- then, are seeking some precedence that we
are not putting full permanent accesses at quarter miles or in that vicinity and -- fair
enough. Was that what--
Nary: What was your question? I'm sorry?
Newton-Huckabay: During the conversation on that I had kind of thought that we might
consider putting -- you know, keeping -- endorsing a full access at the quarter mile,
rather than the half mile, in some situations, but based on City Council and ITDs
actions, that is not the case.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
yeah, that is correct, that's not what the Council recommended and they had this similar
discussion in regards to this roadway at the corner where the Walgreen's is supposed to
go and the same issue about whether full access would be allowed. But, again, it was
too close to the corner for ITD to support an intersection -- or for a light and that was
where the discussion wasn't even at that -- at that project of the light being at the half
mile at this point.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. On the -- overall, I don't have a real big problem with the lot
transition, because I think they transitioned it pretty well, but I do -- and I am concerned
about the subdivision transition. I think developers, particularly because they don't have
a direct access, that -- you know, monumental access, whatever you want to call it,
needs to go to extra efforts to make your development blend in with the Strada
Bellissima and the Bear Creek, so they do look like a contiguous -- or as close as they
can. I mean I understand if you can't do street trees, but I do think that -- that some,
you know, extra ordinary effort should be taken there to at least blend in with and
support, so that it looks more like a seamless development, rather than that and I mean
I happen to live in a subdivision where they did not transition between subdivisions well
and it is -- it's obvious and I don't think it would be too difficult to accomplish that. With
that said, I remember the conversations somewhat on the collector and the church, but
I, unfortunately, don't remember exactly how I felt about it at the time. But I would
wonder if there is -- there has got to be a compromise here, if it's even a possibility --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 38 of 86
because we didn't take advantage of the -- making the Kodiak area a proper collector
when Bear Creek was built, is there some kind of compromise at an access into
Shepherd's Creek that starts with some kind of calming -- you know, substantial calming
-- traffic calming capability, whether I -- I am not a traffic engineer, I don't know what all
those options are, but -- a 90 degree turn.
Zaremba: Three of them.
Newton-Huckabay: But I guess that would be my only thought is to maybe go to one
more effort to make that less appealing, if the collector does go through, to zipping
through there. And with that said that's my only notes. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. We have heard from the balance of the Commissioners and I'd like to
just throw out my two cents worth here. It appears to me that there is very little support
for the collector road at this time, but I think that the city has done a very good job of
setting the stage for future and I think that we would be remiss if we did not take this
opportunity to at least provide for that down the road. I'm not sure that the collector
road being installed at -- at the same time this subdivision is necessary, but if we don't
take the steps to make sure that that's available down the road, then, we have missed a
very good opportunity and it seems to me from Mr. Nary's comments that if, in fact, we
were to make an amendment to the development agreement that currently exists as
part of our recommendation, that would include the verbiage that would make that
collector available to the public at some point down the road when it becomes
necessary, while at the same time not doing it at this time when the subdivision is put in,
seems to respond to all of you that have spent your evening with us and at the same
time take care of the needs of the city into the future and that seems to be kind of a
balance between both sides and it's -- that's what I would support.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the functional difficulties with going that direction is that
ACHD does not build collector roads, the developers build corrector roads. ACHD does
not fund them, they don't impact fee them. Essentially, collector roads are developer
driven. The only way to accomplish that would be for the developer to trust or bond for
the future building of the roadway, as well as putting the right of way or -- not a right of
way, but putting on an easement in a separate common lot, but they would also have to
bond for the building of the road and just let that money sit there until the road was built.
It would make more sense while they are building their other roads, for them to go
ahead and build it. ACHD isn't going to build it. They don't build collectors.
Rohm: The devil is in the detail, isn't it?
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 39 of 86
Newton-Huckabay: Can I recommend that we maybe wind up with getting a feel for
what each of the Commissioners is recommending and, then, see if we have something
to make a recommendation.
Rohm: We could sure -- we could sure do that. Let's start with you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Without coming to some agreement on transition into Bear
Creek and Strada Bellissima, making some agreement on going the extra effort to do
everything we could -~ if the collector had to be -- had to go in at this time, is making a
substantial effort for some type of calming .effort, I would be voting against
recommending approval tonight.
Rohm: Wow. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I do not like to send things like this onto City Council when there is
so many questions of -- I don't feel comfortable with my decision. Am I being clear?
Rohm: Yeah. No, that's why you're here. Thank you. Commissioner Mae.
Mae: At the present time I would be in favor of supporting staffs recommendation for
the collector road as it is at the present time and I would also agree to the R-8, because
I do believe the transition is there. So, that would be opposing not -- staffs
recommendation to go to R-4.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Mae. Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Maybe a question for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay first. And that was on
your understanding of what you were talking about, the transition. You're concerned
about the traffic calming; is that the main concern?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I will be honest with you, I -- I can't make a definitive one way
or another on the -- how I really strongly feel about the collector. I just -- that is not very
comfortable to me.
Borup: I understand. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: But I'm talking about transition from Bear Creek and Strada
Bellissima into Shepherd's Creek -- I keep wanting to call it Sadie Creek. Into
Shepherd's Creek. Having it look like it belonged there. A seamless -- a more
seamless transition than just -- because when you go from a subdivision that has street
trees and detached sidewalks, into a subdivision that has the curb and gutter, et cetera,
it is an obvious transition and I would just like to see them go to some efforts to mitigate
that, so that it does look more --
Borup: Do we know that it does have --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 40 of 86
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I understood.
Borup: Do we have separated sidewalk at the stub streets? Can we just maybe clarify
that one thing?
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open.
Rohm: The Public Hearing is still open.
Borup: Because I know only about half of Bear Creek has the divided -- the separated
sidewalk.
Schultz: Exactly. I believe this portion of Bear Creek does. I have been paying
attention, but I believe Strada Bellissima does. I know this portion of Bear Creek does
not. I know everything around the park had detached. I know this has some detached.
Everything up in here did not have detached. I'll just respond to that one question, but --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Schultz: Thanks.
Borup: They could do that transition. It would decrease the lot size right there, you
didn't have a concern with that, but they could do a transition at that point. At least on
the ones that -- I mean it's not going to make sense to do -- to do a separated sidewalk
if the one it's tying into doesn't have it. You're saying make them both compatible.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I get the luxury of not having to design it, I just get the luxury
of getting to pass judgment on it, so -- again, having not been out there on Bear -- Bear
Track or Cub or Kodiak in quite -- you know, in -- probably in the last few months at
least, I don't recall exactly -- particularly the pictures that public testimony brought forth.
I think that's a pretty valid concern that -- to look and see what's possible. I'm not
saying that we -- that we solve and design that tonight, I'm saying I would be more
comfortable if we would have some agreement that that would take place, as in the
recommendation of City Council.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: But I would also say this wouldn't be the first time that I would be
voting in opposition to the rest of the Commission on recommendations either.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I don't have any concerns -- real concerns with the subdivision. I would be in
favor of it as presented, other than adding the 1,400 foot -- square foot minimum. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 41 of 86
-- I think that would make it more compatible with Bear Creek. I am -- I'm undecided on
the collector. I think it's very necessary -- I'm not undecided in the long term, I think -- I
would be in favor of some type of preservation, if it's legally possible. If there is no way
to do that, then, I would say now. If there is a way to legally handle it that it could be
preserved for future, then, that would be my first choice.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think a number of suggestions have been made. I would be able to support
leaving the zoning as the R-8 that it is, with the requirement that the minimum house
size be 1,400 square feet. I feel the collector is important and the only way I can see to
do that is to have it built with the subdivision, but I would also agree that it's not a bad
idea to have some kind of traffic calming at the intersection of Alaska and Kodiak.
There is a couple of those intersections, but the intersection that would be within this
subdivision, whether it's a traffic circle or an island or a little bit of a chicane or bulb out
or something, I --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I like traffic circles.
Zaremba: Okay. The only difficulty with that is they take up a little bit more space and
the developer might lose a lot or two to do that, but --
Newton-Huckabay: But they are fun.
Borup: See, my feeling is a 90 degree turn is the best traffic calming you can have.
More so than a chicane would do.
Zaremba: Well, that was my original feeling, that with the three 90 degree turns that
you have, to continue on Kodiak, you have to make three 90 degree turns. That
seemed to me to be satisfactory, but I could listen to an additional traffic calming, if that
was the thought. That being said, I, actually, would like to see that drawing in that form
before we forward it to the City Council, so my feeling would be to give the developer
some instruction that pretty well parallels what staff has already said, but to see it in an
actual drawing before we pass it onto City Council.
Borup: To see what specifically?
Zaremba: The roadway.
Borup: Oh, the collector?
Zaremba: Yeah. The collector. To actually have it imprint in a drawing.
Schultz: Is the Public Hearing still open?
Zaremba: With the alignment decided. So, the question to you is that possible?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 42 of 86
Schultz: We have an alignment that's designated here, if the Council so decides that
that is important to put in now, then, that would be the decision. I'm not sure ACHD
would take it, but that would be their decision. Like you said, there is calming -- some
measure of calming. I think anything -- a traffic circle or the other things you said are
maybe a good idea, maybe a bulb out or something, but a traffic circle would be overkill
in this area, but we have an alignment designated that the church is -- has accounted
for. Do they want to build it, do we want to build it -- we don't think it's necessary, but it
could be a recommendation that we build it, it could be a recommendation that we
reserve the right of way. And we would -- we would take that forward to Council and
talk to them about that and say, yes, we can or here is why we shouldn't, but there is --
you can see there is room for it. There is no structures in the way for that. There is a
big tree I think right in that area, but other than that, that's the only thing in that area.
So, I don't think it's necessary for us to pencil out some different alternatives in that area
when we have a straight through alignment. Our residential subdivision has buffering
here, no on-street housing, so we wouldn't have to revise anything if that were called a
collector. So, we have accounted for both options listed as design, just so we wouldn't
have to some day redesign it at this point, so that's what I'm standing up to avoid some
redesign when we have already accounted for it, hopefully, so that's all.
Zaremba: If we were to do that I would want the word disputed to be removed.
Schultz: You know what, it's interesting that Anna and I laughed at each other when we
-- and Mr. Nary was there. We were in a group meeting -- that we talked about -- Anna
suggested it. She says why don't we just call it disputed. I said great idea, because,
you know, we are friends, but we are in respectful disagreement and that's just where
we are at. So, we could remove disputed off of there. But it is a point of concern that
nobody's recommending -- except staff and this body, which is important, but ACHD
isn't, the homeowners aren't. Not to say in 30 years it might be a good idea, but,
hopefully, we can just move forward tonight with your recommendation and Council will
have to -- they have never seen this and they will have to, you know, take everything
into account and make the final call. But, hopefully, that was the recommendation. Like
I said, it won't change the layout, it doesn't change the design at all in terms of what
works and what doesn't, whether that's there or not, so --
Borup: And how about transition on this street, on doing a separated sidewalk, just on
this -- just the depth of that lot. Now, you have got to -- you have got a common area
here it looks like.
Schultz: Yeah. We have extended that common area that Bear Creek started, so that
will be a continuation.
Borup: So, these sidewalks are already align to each other?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 43 of 86
Schultz: I believe -- I don't know if our survey exactly picks up whether that was
detached or not, but there is a 20 foot landscape buffer that Bear Creek put in that we
are going to extend at that same location and --
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: -- the sidewalk could be detached in that area real easily on that location no
problem.
Borup: So, you're tying in the landscaping to give a continuous design there?
Schultz: Exactly. Yeah. It will be a continuation of what was started.
Borup: Is that kind of what you were thinking?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't want to see -- I don't want one sidewalk to stop and
four foot over another sidewalk starts.
Schultz: No. It blends in. That's always been our intent to match this in as best we can
architecturally, tree-wise -- we don't have enough room in some locations for the
detached, other locations we do. So, as we look at that we go to our final design. We
can add those in, no problem. Where there is room -- the main north-south streets, we
just don't have the -- like Mr. Borup said, the lots would get smaller or they'd have less
yard. We would have more for the detached, but you give up something. So, we will
final design --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But I -- Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Just so that I'm clear on what you're saying here, you will match the
sidewalks at all of the transitions to all of the subdivisions around you.
Schultz: We can do it here, we can have detached. And we can do it here and
detached and kind of probably come back in right about right there and, then, right here
we could do it detached. And up here it's attached right now.
Newton-Huckabay: But it's attached on --
Schultz: Bear Creek. On Cub -- or Bear Creek. This is all attached, isn't it?
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Schultz: It's all attached.
Borup: So, it would just be the two -- it would just be the two.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 . 2006
Page 44 of 86
Schultz: And we have full landscaping on both sides of this road. I mean there is
landscaping here and landscaping there. I mean there is a good buffer. Landscape,
tree, shrubs, grass, to help with that transition.
Mae: Would something to the effect of landscaping to be designed to similar standards
as the existing stub street? That's where you're trying to start a stub street.
Newton-Huckabay: And the sidewalk.
Borup: It's the stub street.
Mae: Well, I'm just writing some things down here. Landscaping and walks.
Rohm: Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
Rohm: Last and possibly least, my -- I think where I come down on this is I'm in favor of
the development. I'm in favor of the 1,400 square foot minimum house. I'm in favor of
preserving a right of way, but -- and I don't know how it should be worded, but I don't
necessarily think that the collector needs to be built at this time, but it needs to be
preserved and I think that kind of falls with the balance of the public out there and if Mr.
Nary had the -- could give us the verbiage, that's the way I would recommend that
motion be made to forward onto City Council, but I'm in favor of the project as a whole.
So, there you have it. I think that we have discussed this pretty thoroughly and at this
point in time I'd like to get a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP
06-040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we want to discuss -- well, I guess we have got two choices. Someone can
make a motion and see how it -- how it votes or we can discuss some of the issues
where we have got varying opinions. And it sounds to me like we have got varying
opinions on the collector road and, then, the transition would be the only other thing.
Well, I don't know if we have varying opinions on the transition.
Mae: I think that's well taken there. My concern on the collector road -- you know, we
are trying to do something -- you know, have the developer bond it or whatever -- I'll let
legal maybe answer this, but my biggest concern is is that -- I mean we can anticipate
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 45 of 86
the cost of down the road or -- my concern is if you try and bond for it now and the road
gets put in in say ten years from now, who is paying the difference at that point or are
they going to anticipate the bond is going to pick that up and take care of it at that point?
Am I making any sense here?
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Moe: That's why, you know, I'm in favor of anticipating that road to go in now, because
I'm concerned -- I don't know how you're going to be able to get it done later, because
Commissioner Zaremba has already made the statement that it is the developer's
responsibility to put this in, so I don't know how you can get him to do it down the road.
Once all those lots are sold and he's pretty much squared away and that road is not in,
I'm not sure how you are able to get it done at that point.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would add that the cheapest time to do it would be now. If the
bond's more for it than it would cost him to do it, because if he's already got the
equipment out there doing the other mile or so of road that's involved in the subdivision,
you have the same equipment and materials, build the road while they are there. That's
to me the cheapest possible way to do it.
Mae: I agree a hundred percent.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we make the motion, leaving staff's
recommendation for the collector road as is, Commissioners vote their -- vote their
opinion based on that. We make changes on the items that we agree on, such as the
transition and the R-4 -- or leaving it to R-8 I think was the general consensus, with a
1,400 square foot minimum.
Rohm: I think you're well on your way of making a motion.
Borup: The other concern I still have is when the conditional use was approved for the
church and it's showing access there, how were they able to build with not complying
with that? I mean apparently -- obviously, the plan changed.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, let's ponder that another time.
Borup: Well, no, that's part of -- that's what we are talking about changing. And we are
talking about changing the development agreement right now. That's what this is all
about.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's why I'm recommending that we leave -- regarding the
collector street at staff's recommend and --
Borup: So, is this -- but is that whole cost on the back of this developer or is that shared
with -- with the other development?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 46 of 86
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I may be able to help out a little bit in that. Although the church
was the sole applicant on their CUP for their church, they I don't think ever intended to
actually construct that roadway. It was primarily -- although they were showing an
access northerly to it on their plan, the road was to be constructed by others, assuming
they sell that back -- whatever. I didn't know that they had decided on 12 acres at the
time, but sell that off and that developer or some other party would build this road there.
Borup: Right. That's -- and I think in the site design they had to move the building
further to the south to leave room for that. There was some discussion on that. Okay.
Zaremba: I think the discussion about moving the church farther south was whether or
not you had to have a build-able lot on the north side of the road and to do that you --
the road will fit and move the church a little bit and I think we left that up for when they
came in with a plat.
Borup: From what I heard, it sounds like we had two Commissioners in favor of
preservation and three that wanted to build it now. Does that sound --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just maybe if I -- so I can be clear of what -- what you may end up
with, part of your concern or discussion and the testimony that you heard is the
connection of that property now to Meridian Road. ACHD has one opinion about that.
We don't have any ITD opinion about that today, other than that's the logical point,
based on their current policy, as to where the intersection would be. The concern, of
course, of the testimony you have heard from the adjacent properties is the connection
of that roadway today and I think you have addressed that a little bit in your discussion.
Is your desire to connect that roadway today, we do not have enough information to do
that, or is your desire to construct the roadway short of that intersection, because at the
point that an intersection is going to be constructed there, that may not be the exact
point for it. So, if you want the roadway to be able to be connected to a future
intersection, it may not have to go to Meridian Road today. They can construct it like
any other stub street would go to -- to the intersection enough to connect it, because,
again, it has to line up with the street across and the street across isn't constructed
today. The intersection would have to be constructed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk,
signalization and all of that five, ten years from now, I don't know what the standards
would be. It may not make much sense to try to connect that today, but it does make
sense, from what you're saying, that a majority of the roadway be constructed today.
And, again, I don't know if that was your desire, but I'm just concerned in trying to
fashion this development agreement if you wanted to connect to Meridian Road today,
we haven't had any information from ITD if they are even -- well, other than they are
saying -- I mean they are saying the logical point again, but they are not saying --
Zaremba: There is an August 31st letter that says ITD supports the city's proposal for a
collector road connection at the half mile location and future signalization.
Nary: But I'm thinking on the point of from a design standpoint of designing a roadway
to generally match up with a roadway that doesn't exist across the street probably isn't
Meridian Planning & zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 47 of 86
very practical today, but can certainly make that roadway within 50 feet, 25 feet, or
whatever you suggest to the edge, so that it can be connected in the future, but I'm just
concerned in trying to fashion this development agreement and connecting it there
when even ITD isn't telling us where it exactly has to go, but it would get you there
where you would like to be, I think, if you consider that and at least address some of the
concerns you had in regards to the connection today, which mayor may not be
practical. I don't know if that helps you, I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this
agreement based on what your desires are.
Rohm: Wow. That helps. Let's see.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to -- my same recommendation that we add things
that we agree on into the development agreement and forward onto City Council and
vote our conscience on staffs recommendation for the collector road.
Rohm: I tend to agree with what you're saying. I guess the staffs recommendation
doesn't provide any definition to the collector road, though, and so just to say you're
going to have a collector road, that is not very well defined by that being included in the
staff report, it still doesn't get it defined, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment would be that it really can't deviate very much,
the final engineering decision about where it goes probably can only deviate by five to
ten feet north and south, if it's going to have to have a curve, roughly, to follow the
property line of the Bear Creek north of it, essentially the alignment that was on the
CUP and that is -- that is shown on this as the disputed part, it really can only move a
few feet when it's finally engineered. But it's got to be essentially where it shows.
Mae: I agree.
Rohm: And I agree with that. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you had a great
idea that -- to move it forward to City Council with the changes that we have discussed
and agreed to and go from there. The staff has recommended the collector street and
we want the 1,400 square foot home, and --
Zaremba: Transitions at the stubs.
Rohm: -- transition at each ingress and everything else we are pretty much in
agreement. Would you like to make a motion to that effect, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Caleb, on the change to the Commission recommending
that the R-8 zoning -- where do you want me to place that condition?
Hood: There is, actually, two places that it's probably easier, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, that it's probably just easier to modify two of the existing -- one, the
development agreement provision on page -- oh, Exhibit B, excuse me, at the very top
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 48 of 86
of the page, miscellaneous application one, it says that lot size frontage and density
standards of the R-4 zone, just change the R-4 to the R-8 zone and --
Zaremba: Plus a minimum lot size. Minimum house square footage.
Hood: And you could add it there as well. Yeah. And a minimum house size. So, I
would just modify that paragraph.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wait. Where is that paragraph -- what, one paint --
Hood: It's one.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, just one. Prior to the final plat being --
Hood: Yeah. There is some bold and -- there is bold and underline there. That's
what's being modified in the development agreement or proposed to be added to the
development agreement.
Newton-Huckabay: So, leave -- and just change that to R-8?
Hood: And add your minimum house size, either in that same sentence or start a new
or -- the other section is in the preliminary plat. It says some language about the plat
not being approved as submitted. You could either leave that language or -- and
approve the plat as submitted, take the disputed off the collector roadway -- you kind of
have -- if that's the direction you choose to go. That's -- you have some options there.
But that condition would need to be modified to begin at -- it talks about the R-4
development.
Newton-Huckabay: And where -- what number is that one?
Hood: 1.1.1. Same page. It's the next paragraph down.
Borup: Oh, there we go.
Hood: So, those are the preliminary plat conditions limiting the residential portion to the
R-4 standards.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, where should I put the comment regarding transition of
landscaping and sidewalks with the stub streets? 1.1? 1.1.11?
Hood: You could either add a new one or if you felt that putting the landscape
condition, that's 1.1.2. We could add a new bullet there to that -- it deals with
landscaping, not so much with sidewalks, but it's, essentially, the same thing.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I put the whole statement there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 49 of 86
Hood: That works, too.
Borup: And Commissioner Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Borup: If I may. I might have some wording to help you there.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be great.
Borup: I'm not -- at least as far as the location that the sidewalk landscaping transition
would match Bear Creek along Bear Track Drive, that would include that whole -- that
whole stub. And, then, Alaska south of Whitehall, if that -- if that's what you had in
mind. So, that would be this whole area here and this whole area here.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we already match on the north.
Borup: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Based on the plans today. I have a question. As the staff report
stands today with the statements regarding the collector, I am not in favor of voting for
recommendation on all points to City Council. Is it still appropriate for me to make a
motion and, then, vote against my motion? Well, I think that the collector issue -- that's
what I was saying -- is to -- too complicated for us to decide tonight and whatever we
decide tonight is not going to resolve the issue for the developer and/or the public who
is here tonight, going back and redesigning or -- is not going to solve the issue for the
pUblic or the developer as well. The only thing that's going to solve the issue for the
publiC and the developer on this collector is for a final decision to be made. I would
hope that you would agree with me on that. That's the reason why I recommend that
we move it on to City Council as written and vote our conscience on the remainder of
the report.
Borup: So, you're saying you don't really have an opinion on the collector that you want
to vote on?
Newton-Huckabay: The way it's recommended in the staff report I am not in favor of it.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, I think probably Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's
comments that for her to make the motion and, then, vote against it wouldn't be
appropriate, so let's just -- would you mind making a motion and I think we have --
Borup: Well, I don't think I was going to make the same motion that she would.
Rohm: In any case --
Borup: But Mr. Zaremba probably will.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 50 of 86
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to --
Borup: But I would be glad to make a motion.
Rohm: Somebody.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't mean to be difficult here, but I --
Rohm: No. I agree. Commissioner Zaremba, would you, please, make a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- one moment while I find the first part of the notes here. Oh,
here we are. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 06-040 and MI 06-004 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21st, 2006, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval: Exhibit B, the first page of that,
under miscellaneous application, paragraph one, within the bullet where the bold
underline is, I would change the beginning of the bold underlined to read: And
development of single family residences on 12 acres that comply with the lot size,
frontage, and density standards of the R-8 zone, instead of R-4, with a minimum house
size of 1,400 square feet. The second sentence prior to occupancy I would leave as is.
I would add another sentence after that that says that landscaping and sidewalks will
transition at the stub streets to match the adjoining stubs. Then, in site specific
requirement preliminary plat, paragraph 1.1.1, in the middle of that it mentions R-4
development, I would change that to R-8 development. In paragraph 1.1.2 I would add
another bullet that says landscaping and sidewalks adjoining existing stub streets shall
match. Mr. Moe. Commissioner Mae.
Mae: I have got one question for you.
Zaremba: Yes.
Mae: If you look under -- back up under number one in your miscellaneous application,
in your last sentence in the balded area, what -- do you want to do anything with that?
Zaremba: No. It has to be -- it has to be a public roadway. It can't be a private one.
Mae: My concern is accepted by ACHD when we have been told that they will not
accept it.
Zaremba: Well, if it's built they will accept it.
Rohm: I agree with that.
Meridian Planning 8. Zoning
September 21.2006
Page 51 of 86
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of -- let me put my glasses back on -- MI 06-004 and PP 06-040, to include
staff comments with -- as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: There is four in favor and one dissenting.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Schultz: Thank you very much. Have a good evening.
Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in and this is the longest hearing that we have ever
had that I have been a part of and thank you all for coming in. And we are going to take
another short break and when we return we will talk about the balance of the agenda.
(Recess.)
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom
Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21
residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the public -- the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with -- do we have to
open AZ -- the Portico Place Subdivision to accept withdrawal?
Borup: Go ahead. It will cover it.
Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-039 and PP 06-037, both
items related to Portico Place Subdivision, for the sole purpose of withdrawing them
from our agenda.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept their letter of withdrawal.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept their letter of withdrawal for AZ
06-039 and PP 06-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 52 of 86
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a
C-G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330
E. Fairview Avenue:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-028 associated with
Dutch Brothers Drive- Thru, for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly
scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for the date of November 16th, 2006.
Zaremba: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we continue CUP 06-028 to November 16th,
2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CPA 06-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land
uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Meridian
Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use
designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and
Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey
Engineers - between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between
Columbia Road to % mile north of Amity Road:
Rohm: All right. Moving a little faster here. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the
Public Hearing on CPA 06-003 related to Southeast Comprehensive Plan amendment
and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This application is a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment, which, again, by state law you can only make a
recommendation to the City Council at a minimum -- or a maximum of one every six
months, so I'm going to -- I don't want to rush things. I know we spent a lot of time on
the last project. This is a huge -- only in land area, but there are huge development
projects that are going to be coming before you. In fact, there are two of them that are
within the area proposed for amendment in this subject application, but I am going to
run fairly quickly through the proposal. Now, we are bound -- part of this area is
currently within the city's area of impact and our urban service boundary. The -- let's
see. This map's a little bit tough for me to read. There is Eagle. So, right here is our
current area of impact boundary. No. I'm sorry. That's -- so we are a quarter mile
south. You can see the dashed line there. That's current area of impact. So, two of the
properties, which will be the next two agenda items, are currently designated low
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 53 of 86
density residential upon our future land use map today. The applicant is proposing to
modify the map with all the areas that are highlighted in the teal blue or whatever color
that is. General boundaries, again, are Amity Road -- just north of Amity Road, Eagle
Road, over to Meridian Road, and southbound to Columbia Road. There is the aerial.
As you can see, it's -- you know, you would expect largely agricultural rural. There are
some within the four miles that this generally encompasses. There is a seminary.
There is a lineman school for Idaho Power. I think it's one of these. I can't quite make it
out from here. There is another -- I think a church owns the parcel here. ACHD has a
gravel -- I'm not exactly sure what they do back here, but they have some type of a pit
back there. There is another -- and it may even be associated with American Paving I
think is the company that's right on the corner there, but this is all within the
geographical boundaries of the map amendment. Now, the applicant, again, has a
direct interest today in what is highlighted. And let me show you the map that they
propose to the city to amend our Comprehensive Plan map with and, again, I'm going to
focus on the darker highlighted areas. There are these cross-hatched -- it may be a
little bit harder to see. The yellow isn't very vibrant and you can definitely make out that
that is part of their application. Some -- a .thousand acres, around 1,100 acres, roughly,
composed of -- I can't remember how many parcels, but there are several parcels that
are involved with this. I'm just going to call out the neighborhood center here at the
intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. There is another mixed use area. It does
not carry the neighborhood center designation, but a mixed use regional designation
shown on Eagle Road. Also potentially shown is another mixed use neighborhood
center on Eagle Road at the Amity intersection. A fire station being proposed. This fire
station currently on the map is at the half mile. The fire department's okay with moving
that designation to this location. The park's department previous discussions regarding
parks in this general area thought it would be kind of neat to have a -- I'll call it an
alternative park, but there is a -- they are filling in this area now and it would give it
some -- it's a bowl almost today and they thought, here, that would be good for maybe
sledding or some rock climbing opportunities or -- not your traditional soccer field green
space park. So, I'll get to some of my recommendations, but that's in my
recommendation for the map. Essentially, to cut to the chase, staff is recommending
that everything currently within our area of impact stay with the current designations. I'll
jump to that real quick. That area is highlighted a quarter mile south. So, everything
would stay as it's currently designated today, with the exception of moving the fire
station here, adding a multi-use pathway to the map along the Intermountain Gas
pipeline. That's going to be a great amenity, which hopefully you will see here in the
next little bit with some of the developments that actually are adjacent to it. And, again,
moving the park designation there. But, again, the only real change up here are what I
just mentioned and I'm going to jump back to the applicant's proposal real quick. So,
that -- that change does affect these two projects. It affects them inasmuch as they are
low -- I'll let the applicant actually get up when we get to this project, I think there is
some -- I didn't read their letter, but I did see that there is a letter from them talking
about the density proposed there. I'm not going to go into that too much, but, generally,
leaving this alone, because we -- the city is currently going through looking at the
greater south Meridian area and where our future -- our 20 year build out line -- area of
impact line should be, essentially, between Kuna and the City of Meridian, Boise, what
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 54 of 86
can we service, what can they service, what are appropriate land uses -- there is a huge
study going on right now. Matt Ellsworth in our long range Comprehensive Planning
side of things is here this evening if you have any questions about where that study
there is. There was a meeting last night regarding just that and getting some
stakeholders involved in saying what do you see for this -- this isn't the first meeting, it's
ongoing, it's been going on for a couple few months anyways. So, staff felt that it wasn't
right to bypass that whole project and, actually, approve everything that the applicant is
showing on their map. Now, again, they have an interest in the highlighted stuff. I
believe that we should let that process take shape and I understand that this map that
staff is proposing is probably going to change -- maybe not too substantially. Quite
honestly, we are -- from what I have heard -- and it is secondhand -- most folks that do
own land down there do want to keep some type of a rural feel to this area. So,
designating three-quarters of the land down in this four square mile area as low density
residential -- probably is a best guess. I mean, really, I don't see -- I don't see that
changing a lot. Now, there could be some more commercial maybe along Eagle Road,
maybe even some at the intersection of Amity, as the applicant had shown, and Eagle
Road. One of the major changes that I'm -- I don't know if it's major -- one of the
changes I'm recommending to the applicant's proposal is that the neighborhood center
shown on their plan go from the regional designation to the community designation.
That just, essentially, steps it down a notch from being the Costcos or those uses where
people will travel from Nampa to come here and make it more community based uses,
such as maybe a smaller grocery store or something like that. But you're basically
drawing people in from a couple miles around, not a regional draw. Not a Cabelo's. 80,
that's one of the changes that's been recommended. The other change -- and I'm going
to keep my pointer on it right here, if you kind of just look in this general area there. The
applicant is showing low density that generally runs right along the ridge and I'll let him
talk about the topography, because I have not walked this whole area and I'm sure Kent
knows a lot more about the topography. I did read his letter and do know that this is a
pretty predominant ridge that runs in this general location. The idea was to have low
density, nice views there, kind of make the medium density transition there. Staff has
recommended that they move that line essentially on the ridge and make it out a little bit
more low to that, still, essentially, keep the same 45 degree angle, if you will. Again,
this is a guide, so it doesn't have to fall right there, it -- there is some wiggle room in
exactly where it transitions from low to medium or maybe low to medium to high in the
future, if that's what the study says, but -- but that would be another change that I'm
recommending to their map. And, again, that we, the city, adopt this addendum to our
future land use map, with the understanding, again, that it is going to be subject to
additional change is six more months when we come before you with that detailed plan
saying we are fine tuning even, you know, this area that's low density on this plan even
further. I hope that makes sense of everyone, but I didn't feel all high and mighty and
want to tell everyone what their land uses should be and really bypass that process that
we have hired this consulting team to undertake here and it is -- we are shooting to
make the December 15th cutoff and, then, again, we can only bring that
recommendation to you or a Camp Plan map amendment to you six months after you
make a recommendation. So, the earliest would be March, I guess, if I do that math in
my head real quick. April -- to the 1 st of April, I guess, would be the first that we could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 55 of 86
actually change this map again or recommend changing the map. But in the interim I
don't think there is any negative impacts to that. We may get someone here that wants
to come in and do a low density subdivision in the next six months before there is that
opportunity. We will be able to address that and the best interest question individually
and I just thought, again, that we will start at the bottom and work our way up, rather
than having some be designated commercial and bump them all the way down to
medium density residential or whatever, it makes sense to start low and let's work our
way up, rather than starting high and jumble land uses all over the place. So, that's kind
of my thought process. Hopefully -- again, hopefully, that makes sense to you all. I
think that's really -- I did list the changes in the staff report. Those are the major ones,
though. I think with that -- if you look at page nine of the staff report, it's something --
the summary and recommendation section, it does list -- you can kind of follow along,
you can look at their map and, then, these are the summary and recommendation
changes, but through the applicant's proposal, essentially, there were the -- the two
modifications of staff -- three, I guess, if you include the change to have the stuff that's
currently within our area of impact remain as it is. So, with that I think I will stand for
any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood, I just wanted to clarify. Basically what you're
saying is to keep it a little more basic at this time, more the low density, until the south
Meridian plan is adopted, anticipating that -- that this designation would probably be
temporary and that the south plan -- south Meridian plan could change that and it would
be able to get a little more specific, is that --
Hood: Let me clarify that a little bit. What the applicant has an interest in -- which is,
again, this stuff that's highlighted darker --
Borup: Right. Quite a bit.
Hood: I don't anticipate that changing -- there may be a tweak here or there -- you
know, maybe -- maybe this changes to some other designation, but, really, they have
development plans for this property that corresponds to what they are proposing.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: And they are ready or getting ready to submit those to you. So, I do not see
what is highlighted here as amended here changing. It's the green -- it's really the light
greens that are not part of this -- they may well look exactly like this when you get
through the Public Hearing process, I just do not know that. I think the applicant did a
good job of proposing a pretty good transition between their project and adjacent
properties and showing some additional commercial and, you know, a lot of residential
and -- but we have got market studies going on. We have hired professionals that have
looked at Meridian over the past 20 years and trends and are going to throw a bunch of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 56 of 86
different studies that stake holders and you guys here in six months and they will further
amend what the applicant doesn't have an interest in today. So, just to clarify that.
Borup: Thank you.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle, Eagle, Idaho. It's been an
interesting process doing one of these plans, trying to get what the city wants and what
they had envisioned. I mean just to take something simple like that neighborhood
center, I mean the comment was the first time I showed them after listening to their
comments is that my circle wasn't big enough. So, we have gone through those kind of
gyrations, if you will, and we have talked with many of the governing agencies, the
school district, the fire department, I have been in many discussions with the irrigation
company and the Williams Pipeline people to try to work something out that made
sense and, realistically, the only part that we have any authority to even recommend
that you change is the part that our clients have option agreements or they actually own
and so that's why the line is around what we are showing. And yet some of the logic
that I used and what I was doing is that you currently had the Ten Mile Creek shown in
Tuscany and the developments to the north as a pathway and so I just showed
extending that. If you take this and follow it just a little bit further, you're to Boise Ranch
Golf Course and it runs along the toe of the slope there along this prominent ridge that
we are going to continue to talk about a little bit. The Williams pipeline runs -- well, I
brought a project before you off of Black Cat and Franklin Road, the Williams pipeline
ran through that property. It ends up being some 80 feet wide between the two pipes
that are there. They really don't want houses on top of it. They allow you to cross it
with roads and those kind of things. So, it made kind of sense to turn that into a
greenbelt and it comes out south of the Boise Ranch Golf Course and heads down to
Utah. So, it, actually, makes a pretty good fence. And it cut through the intersection
here at Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, which created a -- kind of a different design
feature that was kind of unique in the fact that you had this area inside and, then, you
have a canal that's located in here that made that kind of unique shape. So, I did go
before the parks commission in this overall area. We are proposing a neighborhood
park at this location, which the parks commissioner thought was acceptable. It kind of
sits off of the existing asphalted road. The green area, the low density portion here, is
already being platted as a non-farm subdivision called Black Rock. Those are acre and
half acre lots with really great views looking out towards Stack Rock and Bogus Basin,
which sit on this predominate ridge that my letter talks about and I -- you look at the
areas -- if you look at this mile section from Amity to Lake Hazel, Eagle Road to Locust
Grove, you have four lots that were developed here in the Diamond Ridge Subdivision
and you have a couple of the estate lots that are in here and, then, a few scattered
along Lake Hazel. You have an LOS church that's located on the corner there and,
realistically, everything else is just a couple farm houses throughout the majority of that
mile section. You're in the same boat here in this section. You have a church site
located here, a few farm houses, basically, along here. This was developed as a ten
acre subdivision to the south of us and, then, my client owns that upper portion. There
is the Bogus Creek Ranch that they do weddings -- that's the only thing I know that they
do out there. I don't know what else they do. They got kind of like a little facade of an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 57 of 86
old frontier wild west town type of deal that is located in this area to the south of our
project. In this mile section here you have the gravel pit that's located at -- across from
the old chicken coops there and, then, you have the highway district's gravel pit and,
then, a few houses across from Mary McPhearson that are going down the ridge and,
then, there is a street or two that go in with a few homes sitting on acre or two acres or
five acres. This point right here drops immediately off to the gravel pit. I mean that --
it's like a cliff, if you will, at that point. There is a subdivision that my former firm did
that's a nonfarm that's located here that's been developed and, then, there is a few five
acre homes that are located in this area. This is basically just a couple homes. Most of
them my client has purchased. Some of the others that are not highlighted he has
options on. There is this non-farm that was done down here with these acres and, then,
the Baptist church owns the corner and, then, the lineman school, a couple other people
have bought in there speculating on commercial development and coming in at the mid
mile collector, as you guys have kind of discussed to extend tonight on that road. As we
have looked at this, one of the areas that we -- kind of talking with staff and so forth, we
recommended that they look at a neighborhood center in this location, mostly because
they don't have any shopping south of the freeway and you put these homes in out
there, you need someplace for them to go shop and so you have Tuscany Lakes that is
right here, Messina Meadows has been approved, most of this section to the north has
development in it, residential development, so there really isn't any spaces left. There is
a city park that's located here in Messina Meadows project. So, if you're looking for a
flat intersection, because you have this ridge that kind of runs through that southwest
area, the closest shopping is at Five Mile and Lake Hazel or you have to go over in
Boise or you have to go north and we all know how much fun that that is in either
Meridian Road or on Eagle Road. So, this made sense to me. One of my clients -- the
property owners here does have an option on this piece of property, so I guess I took
leave of my senses and said that made kind of sense, so -- but that's -- that's why it was
highlighted there. I do have development plans and -- on most of this and what I'm
showing matches pretty close to this application that we will be hearing later. The
reason I suggested median density next to Amity Road is just using a rule of thumb of
what we have done in the north Meridian and that most recent plan is that when you get
closer to the road, you kind of expect higher densities. You know, I guess it doesn't
rattle me that much if it's -- or if it's low density, because you can ask for the bump up,
which I think is a nice option that the city offers that, you know, you're just not locked
into that and the projects that we are proposing in that area were less than -- were three
or less in our densities, so I'm not overly concerned that staff is recommending that that
change. But, to me, that whole area in there that when you're close to Amity Road and I
truly believe that they need some shopping centers at an intersection someplace in the
southwest. This is at the toe of the slope of the hill. This one is at the toe of the slope --
or, actually, it's on the hillside. This one is flat. But we really -- you know, we are not
really thinking that we are going to be the shopping center. We have never wanted to
be the regional -- we are fine with staffs recommendation that that be a community. We
are thinking that that's what we were shooting for anyway, that TN-R, TN-C zoning is
what we were hoping for in there, with some -- just a little -- a nice little neighborhood
center. And I actually think that it will work. We have looked at -- in our development
plans of making this when you're driving Lake Hazel you really will be able to tell that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 58 of 86
you have arrived at this location by -- instead of having that center turning lane,
because we are developing on all four sides of the roads out there, we don't need
turning lanes, except at where we have got streets and so we are talking about putting
landscaping in the center, kind of what -- if you have seen some of the Eagle Road plan,
putting an island in the center with some landscaping and streetlights and those kind of
things are what we are hoping to accomplish there, that you really know that you're
come to a destination. We even played with putting a roundabout there and the
comments back from the highway district, they are not real excited about having a two
lane roundabout yet in Idaho, so we will have to have a stop light. But it's just been an
exciting project. It's been kind of fun to do. We also have proposed another seven or
eight acre park here in this mile section. This will probably be the first -- the parks
department is really -- and the Parks Commission really like the design that we have for
this park that's along the pathway. It was a round park. It's circular and, then, it has
streets and, then, alleys, and the muses coming off of the other side of the circle, but
this park will be round and it kind of gives you a different kind of shape. This park here
is located with an elementary school site that we are proposing and just outside or a
part of the neighborhood center. I think I have probably talked too much and I'll stand
for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Do you have any questions of this applicant?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner.
Zaremba: Mr. Brown would you -- I know you have said you could be comfortable with
some of the staff's suggestions. Is there anything there suggesting that -- would give
you sleepless nights or -- can we switch to the staff's picture? Anything there that just
really scares you?
Brown: With the ability to ask for the bump up -- I mean we are really not trying to get
over four units per acre in most of what we are submitting here. We have great
amounts of open space. This location here with what they were proposing is moving
that line a little further than where I think it should be, but I mean my design is done, I'm
ready to turn it in, the only thing that we are probably -- is kind of similar discussion that
we are going to have at the next hearing is -- you know, is the zone that I'm asking for
matching. Density-wise I'm fine with the density, but it's -- your policies -- the way that
your policies are required that if I have a certain designation and I don't ask for a bump
up to a medium density, then, I can only use certain zones. I think that's basically what
-- so that's about the only place that really does give me a little difficulty.
Zaremba: Okay. Clearly you have put a lot of thought and work into the amendment
that you're asking for in a very large area.
Brown: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 59 of 86
Zaremba: And I think that's great that you can take a big picture like that. The converse
is I also agree with the staff that we need to let the committee that's doing the south
Meridian plan get some of their ideas out.
Brown: Right.
Zaremba: So, it seemed to me it's a pretty good compromise to go with their
suggestion, with the exception of a spot or two that you really would like to have
different.
Brown: The low density -- basically what they have done is they have moved it out into
the flat and I think that -- I can understand their logic and, truly, the only reason that it --
that it, I guess, doesn't really upset me is that you can ask for the bump up. If you did
not have that option and if I was just locked in that I had to have -- basically what you're
saying when you move the zone is that you're not allowed to have R-8, you have to
have R-4 or R-2 and it has nothing to do with density, because I mean what I -- in my
development plan for this particular piece of property, I'm close to 25 acres of open
space, eight of it giving it to the city as a park, and its paths and other things and so,
yeah, we have got smaller lots, so we really didn't want to try to approach it from a --
ask for a PUD. I mean I guess I can ask for a PUD if you go along with their plan,
because I more than exceeded -- I mean I probably have close to a mile of pathway on
that little project, because we put a path at the bottom of the toe of the slope, trying to
make that transition between those two home products, but that's the only part that's
kind of difficult.
Borup: So, that's the main difference, you'd like to keep the transition at the top of the --
top of the slope?
Brown: Toe of the slope. Everywhere else -- we had intended this to be community --
either a miscommunication or me being cheap, because -- I won't touch that one. Caleb
will appreciate that, but -- yeah, we are fine with the community. That's what we want
there. We don't want regional. We don't want people coming there to shop.
Borup: Okay. But are you saying on a project this size you're not going to have any
high density areas?
Brown: The high density areas would be in this neighborhood --
Borup: Just in the neighborhood, that would be the only place?
Brown: And we are proposing a little bit in this regional here that is -- we are hoping this
is similar to Silverstone and what's out on Overland next to Mountain View High School,
that it's an employment base and that there might be similar uses that you guys have
been approving in this area.
Meridian Planning & zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 60 of 86
Borup: I was just thinking, you know, a thousand acres, and there is more than that out
there with other properties that some higher density is probably appropriate in certain
areas.
Brown: And I guess this is about the only area. I mean with the medium density we can
reach the numbers that we are looking for and it just didn't really seem appropriate for
some of the view lots that we will end up with there.
Borup: Questions for staff. Caleb, did you have any concern on -- on moving that area
to the toe of the slope? I mean what was your rationale on going beyond?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't necessarily -- like Kent said, I don't have
any heartburn being -- as the applicant proposed. What it's really going to come down
to is when the development's proposed and having the transition be what possibly the
City Council may be looking for and that's kind of what my rationale was is -- not directly
from the Council, but what I have heard through other avenues that maybe they
envision for this area, some more low density and that's why I felt moving it over a little
bit should reflect better what actually gets constructed on the ground. Not necessarily
represent the zoning, but how many dwelling units are actually constructed per acre up
to three with that and not four to eight, so I --
Borup: So, that is how you determine the zoning, though, isn't it?
Hood: Somewhat. I mean, again, they can apply for an R-8 zone and have some lots
in there that are 5,000 square feet. If the overall density does not exceed three, it's still
consistent with the Camp Plan anyways.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Hood: So, there is some -- there is flexibility. Again, the map -- it is a guide and that
can shift and it's not in exact location anyway, so whether it's here or at the toe of the
slope, when that development comes through -- and there is actually lots that are being
proposed. That's where staffs going to have some more analysis on we need to see it
transition better, not be at the top of the ridge and all the big lots look down on the
smaller lots, but have it truly transition from your half acre lots to quarter acre lots, to
10,000 square foot lots and so on. Or something to that effect. so, that line kind of got
pushed that way or I'm recommending that that line get pushed that way, so it's clear
that we will be looking for a true transition from these new lots, if you will, that next block
or maybe a couple blocks -- it should not jump right into --
Borup: I see what you're saying.
Hood: -- 8,000 square feet, it's just that they should be 12's as well or --
Borup: I guess I would to see the topography to know if that was -- a 20 foot drop off is
a pretty good transition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 61 of 86
Hood: And I'm not saying yes, but if you look at lots backing up to lots, you're not going
to have your -- you know, it's a different--
Borup: Yeah. Let me clarify on the bump up. That applies to zoning that -- or are we
talking the Camp Plan designation?
Hood: It applies to both. So, you can bump up --
Borup: So, you can go from low density to medium density?
Hood: And you can go from an R-4 zone to an R-8 zone. Most of the time when you
ask for an R-8, like the subdivision that we looked at earlier tonight, they were an R-8
zone, but their density was 4.58. So, just over four. But most of them are in the lower
range of medium density.
Borup: Right. That makes it easier, I think, for the Commission to approve something
when it's --
Hood: Yeah. And 1--
Borup: -- when it's close.
Hood: You factor in all the open space. Their overall density of the project is going to
be two and a half, maybe, something like that. I don't know, but--
Borup: Okay. Well, then, if it's appropriate, the bump up would handle it and, hopefully,
the Commission would look at that in an appropriate manner at the time.
Brown: It still works. I mean I signed my name in for and -- you know, and it still works,
I didn't write a response letter to what Caleb had talked about is still workable.
Borup: And I assume you're going to be -- you're involved -- you're going to be involved
in the south Meridian study and do input there and that's another option. And that's
another opportunity -- that's another opportunity for you to change.
Brown: This is another property, but for -- I mean this is moving our property -- the ones
that we are involved with right now.
Borup: if there is going to be another camp plan change, your property could change
again; is that correct? Do I understand that right, Caleb?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that's correct. However, they have got an
application they are ready to turn in, so in the interim six months we will review that
project --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 62 of 86
Borup: Okay.
Hood: -- if you give them this designation. Now, if you don't make a designation, we
can't receive that project --
Borup: Right.
Hood: -- because, then, it's not -- we don't -- we don't have designation for it, but --
Borup: No, I -- okay.
Hood: It wilt be reviewed under whatever you forward on tonight, because it's
anticipated you wilt see that in the real near future.
Zaremba: And that project is for a cement factory that's going to run 24 hours a day?
Hood: You got it. Yeah. We just rubber stamp everything at staff level. We approve
those.
Borup: There is a hog farm right there.
Zaremba: Yes.
Brown: The hog farm is across the street. He has a big sign over here on the Kuna
side. They have a big hog farm right over here. The reason that the -- that natural
topography to me makes -- makes where the low and the medium density and -- I mean
when you look at a north Meridian plan, for example, the majority of it is a medium
density and it really does come down to -- and in both of -- basically, what we are
looking at is four projects, four different subdivisions. The city wants me to break this
one subdivision up into four pieces, because I crossed section line roads, so, you know,
it gets a little more complicated, but what -- in this particular portion of what I'm
developing there, I think the development community, when you have these large
parcels like this and have them together and you have a market that's somewhat been
changing, it's nice to have those smaller lots that would be allowed in the R-8, but at the
same time maybe have something that's more of an R-2, but just ask for the one zone,
instead of having, you know, multiple multiple zones requested for the project and that's
kind of why the line that I have drawn is drawn showing more medium density on that
piece of property is it's more as to how the streets align and going around the park
spaces and those kind of things, so that works -- that works for me. But I can live with --
just have to make another application or write some more letters or something, so --
Hood: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to drag this out too much, but I just had an idea, maybe a
compromise, because if this goes low, just another thought, that if these -- if we keep
the projects that are parcels that are currently within our area of impact -- and this --
these are all low in here, if you maybe took the designation and made it low here and,
then, dropped it straight off or something like that, because you would have -- you would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 63 of 86
have, medium, low and having a strip of medium between two lows to me doesn't -- so,
if you, maybe -- you know, did something like that, because, again, this is going to be
low -- or it is low today and what you're proposing here two applications from now is low,
having that transition somewhere in there maybe makes some sense, too, but, again,
I'm not trying to convolute it too much more, it works either way, but that's -- that
probably represents the land uses that we will see a little bit better.
Rohm: Anymore questions for the applicant?
Brown: Thank you.
Rohm: Yeah. Thanks, Kent. There is nobody else that's signed up to speak to this
application, but if you'd like to come forward you shall be heard. Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just because of the complication of Comprehensive Plan map amendments
needing to be done only once every six months, I would suggest that we continue the
hearing on this one until after the 14 --
Rohm: After what?
Zaremba: If we decide to move one forward and one not forward --
Rohm: Oh. Oh. Okay. We can close the Public Hearing, but just not vote on it.
Zaremba: I would continue it until the end of the meeting tonight, so that we can talk
about 14 also.
Rohm: Okay. I don't have any problem--
Zaremba: That's just a suggestion. Actually, it was a question, not a statement.
Hood: Can I put my two cents in? Sorry to butt in.
Zaremba: Please do.
Hood: If, in fact, you decide -- it sounds like you may be sending forward a
recommendation on this one. If you decide not to send one forward on the other one,
14 or whatever it is, if you don't make a recommendation on 14 and you want to
continue it, I would ask you to continue for at least six months, not continue it for a
month or two to resolve whatever issues you may find there are that you can't make a
favorable recommendation tonight. Either you make a recommendation tonight or you
continue any recommendation for six months. And that's my -- the serious implications
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 64 of 86
to that bigger south Meridian area, if you just continue it for, again, a month, even two
weeks, puts the squeeze on us for --
Borup: You actually mention in your staff report by delaying this would delay the other
plans.
Hood: So, I don't think -- if you're comfortable moving this forward, that's fine, the other
one's going to be on his own and he either comes along with or he waits six months. I
mean that's how I look at it. So, you can still wait on your motion, but I hope it's not
because you're not sure if you're going to make a recommendation as a package deal
or whatever, but --
Zaremba: No, it, actually, wasn't even about my opinion whether to go or not go, it was
just the thought of keeping them together. So, I withdraw my question.
Rohm: Okay. So, do you want to continue it to go together then or --
Zaremba: No. Let's work on it.
Rohm: Okay. Then let's -- could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-003,
related to the Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: I have only got one question or concern and that's maybe -- well, I guess that's
maybe all there is, just the boundaries between the low and medium. I just -- I have
always felt that the best -- the best -- maybe the transition or separation, that seems to
be what a lot of people -- at least neighbors are concerned about is separation between
different densities and that natural topography makes the best separation of anything, I
think. Whether it's a canal, you know, a hundred foot wide drain ditch or a -- or a
hillside, and, you know, I don't know about -- but the way -- the way staff recommends
still leaves that option to do the bump up and --
Rohm: Yeah. I think that the low density throughout, with the option of the bumping up
at those transitions as the development occurs, seems to keep us covered.
Borup: I agree. Then, the decision can be made on specific -- on specific designs, but -
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21. 2006
Page 65 of 86
Rohm: Okay. Keith, would you like to make a motion?
Borup: Well, I was still debating on whether I want to change -- but I think maybe the
applicant would rather we just move it on. Well, what I want to change I don't think I
want to do tonight, because it would be the map, so --
Rohm: Commissioner Mae, did you have something?
Mae: Just pretty much answered what I -- I'm fine.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Do we have a motion --
Mae: I don't think there is one.
Borup: All right. That's what -- I didn't see one earlier. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I would move that we recommend approval of CPA 06-003, request for
Comprehensive Plan amendment as written in the staff report.
Zaremba: For clarification, are you siding with the applicant's original or with staff's
adjustment?
Borup: I think right now with staff's adjustment. Otherwise, we would need to continue
it to have the map redrawn, wouldn't we?
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Or--
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Brown was okay with staff's adjustment.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Did we have a second on that?
Zaremba: I seconded it.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we--
Borup: We do have both maps here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 66 of 86
Rohm: -- forward onto City Council with our recommendation of approval for CPA 06-
003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by
Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62
residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust -
2180 E. Amity Road:
Rohm: Thank you. The next project I'd like to open up, it's AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044,
both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is the Cottswold Village Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and
preliminary plat approval for 62 single family residential lots and nine common lots on
20.18 acres within the R-8 medium density residential zoning designation. Cottswold
Village is generally located on the north side of Amity Road about a quarter of a mile
east of Locust Grove Road. You can see on the map it's right there. Amity Road will
serve as a primary access to the subdivision. To the west there is a proposed Estancia
Subdivision right here, which is zoned R-4. To the north the proposed Bellingham Park
Subdivision, which is this area, which is zoned R-8. South and east, residential parcels
are still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has
proposed preliminary plat approval of 62 residential lots, approximately 7,750 square
feet and 15,000 square feet. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways. Fast
forward here to the landscape plan. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways,
micro pathways and a large common area to meet the open space requirement. An
amenity in the form of a gazebo to be located in the central common area is also
proposed. The subject subdivision has utilized two stub street connections provided by
Bellingham Park at the north and Estancia at the west side. Cottswold Village has also
provided a stub connection of their own at the east property line to provide connectivity
to the county parcel when it redevelops. The site is currently used for agricultural
purposes. The one structure located at the southeast corner, which is down here, is to
be removed. There is two issues to mention here. First, the applicant's proposal,
although in accord with the requested R-8 zoning district, it doesn't comply with the
current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site of low density residential.
It is R-2 and R-4 zoning districts which correspond to said land use designation. The
Commission should also recall that earlier in the evening during the hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment staff has recommended the land use designation for
the site remain at low density residential, as ten of the building lots are slightly under the
R-4 medium low density residential lot size standards of 8,000 square feet. Staff feels
the applicant could and should meet the R-4 criterion. If approved at R-4, this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 67 of 86
development would, then, be in compliance with the current land use designation for
this site. The second issue is that the applicant proposes six foot solid fencing along
the micro pathway in the rear property lines at the northeast corner of the subject site.
This does not meet the requirements of the UDC. To clarify for the applicant, six foot
solid fencing is permitted along all rear and side property lines not adjacent to common
areas or micropaths. The code would limit fencing in these instances to four foot fence
if solid or six foot if open vision. The applicant should state his preference of fencing in
these areas tonight. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward?
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle.
Zaremba: You look familiar.
Brown: I should. We are not opposed to the four foot solid fence, that's just an error in
the landscaping plan. The issue comes is that we were asking for medium density here
and with the approval of the last project, basically, to keep our plan as is we need that
bump up that we have discussed so kindly tonight and what it really affects is that we
have seven lots in here that are a hundred -- no, 224 square feet smaller than 8,000. If
I make them two feet wider and make some of my larger lots smaller -- basically make
everything 8,000 and everything's okay, I guess. Or if I get the bump up, then, I can
leave my lots as is. Staff had mentioned to me over the phone that there is a concern
that if they give this R-8 that, you know, my larger lots, some of them could come in and
re-subdivide, because the minimum is 5,000 square feet and we can commit to not
doing that in the development agreement, which they are requiring us to do as a part of
annexation and I think that we are all covered and we are all fine. Our density is over
three, but just -- I mean, what, 3.3 I think is what it says -- 3.3, 3.2, something like that.
So, we are slightly over, but realistically we are compatible with what's around us. We
have R-8 zoning to the north of us and R-8 zoning that was done in the PUD that I
brought before you in Messina Meadows. We have R-4 that's next door and all of those
lots are exactly 8,000. So, we were just trying to add a little bit of a mix with some
larger lots and just some difference. These lots in this area are like 130, 140 foot deep.
It just gives you something a little different than having everything be 80 feet wide and
100 foot deep or so forth, so -- that's the purpose behind it. Any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: No questions.
Borup: I do have one. Whose -- question on the bump up. What's your understanding
of the procedure and how that is handled? So that -- you made that request tonight. Is
that normally done in writing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 68 of 86
Brown: It's usually done in writing and it's done as a part of submitting my application
and since this kind of happened in between, I mean if you need me to make it in writing,
I will get out my pen and I guess --
Borup: But you have done it verbally in your presentation tonight was your formal
request; is that what you're saying?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Kent. I think that's pretty typical, isn't it, that if an application comes
in and wants an R-8 when it's zoned R-4, that just kind of goes along with the
application, doesn't it? I think we have reviewed a lot of plans that--
Borup: And the problem I have had with a lot of them in the past when they have asked
for them, they have gone to the maximum what those other zones will do. I'm a lot more
comfortable on one like this where they are just barely over and they are not asking to
have 5,000 square foot lots, which would be approved in the R -- yeah. I guess I'm
saying I like this. I like the diversity of lot sizes and the variety of plans it allows to be
built when you have that type of thing. I really like the looks of this subdivision. And I--
were you going to ask for public testimony?
Rohm: Yes, I will. Yes. Is John Huffman here? Would you like to come forward,
please?
Huffman: Hi. My name is John Huffman and I live at 2045 East Amity, which is just off
the map there just across the road to the south and although we were characterized
earlier as just farm houses, you know, kind of around in here, my wife Helen and I have
lived and worked this as a farm and a ranch for 30 years or so. Raised five kids and 15
grandkids. We are actively working this land. We raise some crops. We raise horses.
We sell horses. We give riding lessons. There is a lot of activity there. And I guess -- I
really don't have any -- any problems or concerns, other than just a few questions for
you and that is that, you know, obviously, I'm guessing that in 20 years that probably
this will fit into any kind of a long range plan for this area, the type of operation that we
are running. But, nonetheless, we'd like to be compatible as development happens and
as we transition as well and so my question and concern is mostly around the fact that
we currently receive water for irrigation, we -- you know, we have a need as a
subdivision, for instance, there to the east of us, if they move in, that we have large
animals, we would like there to be some kind of safety requirements or something like
that that we may not actually be able to easily accommodate and we just want to be
able to fit in and have a safe environment for folks as well, so --
Borup: Is this yours here?
Huffman: Yeah. We, actually, have all -- there is three there. So--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 69 of 86
Borup: There is a pointer at the desk there.
Huffman: Okay. So, we currently receive our irrigation water off of this ridge that we
were talking about earlier and we are able to irrigate our fields here and, then -- but my
concern -- and this is currently just an alfalfa field here, but mostly I'm concerned about
the safety issue and having an attractive fence or barrier -- we do a lot of -- we have a
riding arena here along the road. We also have kind of a bridle path where you can
walk your horses around and so forth. A lot of students take horseback riding lessons
and that sort of thing. So, again, no particular questions, but just -- I wanted to just
make you aware that there is a fair amount of activity in that area and we would just like
to be compatible with --
Borup: It sounds like a lot of your concerns would apply to the one that's coming up
next.
Huffman: Yes. Yes. Exactly.
Rohm: And to answer your concerns, typically, what we do is we make a requirement
they put on their plat -- the Right To Farm Act notification on all the lots that are
adjacent to existing agriculture operations and just so that anybody that's buying, they
know that there is agricultural work taking place adjacent.
Huffman: Okay.
Rohm: And I think that that addresses your concerns.
Huffman: All right.
Rohm: And the irrigation, Idaho Code says that if you have got irrigation currently, you
will have irrigation available to you after development as well. Both of those things are
taken care of.
Huffman: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. There isn't anybody else signed up, but if someone would like to come
forward, they are welcome to. Seeing none -- if we can get a motion to close.
Hood: Mr. Chair, although there wasn't really much public testimony, I don't think any
concerns are really -- I'm not going to say no concerns were brought up, but the
applicant should probably have the last word in this matter before you close the Public
Hearing.
Zaremba: And, actually, I saved a question for the applicant as well.
Rohm: Oh, good. Kent, would you like to come back up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 70 of 86
Brown: Kent Brown, for the record.
Zaremba: Thank you. I thought I marked it and now I'm trying to find it, but there was --
I think this is the right one. There was a discussion in the staff report about the turning
radiuses, probably, in this cul-de-sac?
Brown: We will comply.
Zaremba: Okay. It, actually, looked to me like you were bigger than the required
radiuses, but --
Brown: That's what I thought, too.
Zaremba: Okay. As long as everybody is satisfied, that was my only question.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: It looks like there is staff comment.
Rohm: Does staff have any final comment?
Hess: I guess, no, we are still going to stand by our recommendation of having the R-4
zoning designation comply with our Comprehensive Plan designation is just what makes
sense, so --
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Borup: So, you're saying the staff would not be open to a bump up?
Hess: There were -- Commissioner Borup, sorry, we are not exactly opposed that, but,
you know, as staff stated, we are looking to keep that low density and it's -- the R-2 or
the R-4 zoning designations are what corresponds to a land use designation of low
density. It's just --
Borup: I guess if I would have realized that that's the feeling I would have noted
different on that Camp Plan amendment.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I guess let me -- and they are case-by-case.
The bump up is case-by-case.
Borup: And I agree and that's why I felt this one was a good case. There is only eight
lots that are 200 feet under the minimum.
Hood: And that's why I think we made the recommendation. I'm not trying to put words
in Amanda's mouth, but I think the reason that we said -- you really don't need the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 71 of 86
bump. You're so close already, let's have the zoning reflect the actual land uses and if
you're at 3.2 dwelling units an acre, it's low density, have it zoned R-4 not R-8. R-8 is
four to eight dwelling units an acre. It's all over the city today. I mean you have got PDs
out there over the past five years where the zoning doesn't reflect what's going on, but I
think that's the general idea is that with some tweaking of some lot lines a little bit, they
could conform to the R-4. Is it the end of the world, do we not support a bump up
because of that? No, but they are border, they are right there where it seems with -- at
least from our perspective very little effort they could comply with the R-4 standards
and, essentially, have the same development and be zoned to exactly be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, but the bump works, too, and I -- it's happened all over
the city, so --
Zaremba: I can see the logic to that, except that the applicant made the point that by
complying they, essentially, would end up with the same cookie cutter subdivision that
we have been asking people not to do. I like the idea of having different sizes mixed
together. I guess my difficulty is there must be a way to do -- either we say it's an R-4,
except that there are eight designated lots that can be 200 feet under, or we say it's an
R-8 and all but eight lots have to comply with the R-4 -- I mean I'd like to give the
flexibility of the eight or ten lots or whatever it is that he wants to be a different size,
because the only way to get the space to add the 200 square feet to each of them is
take them out of some bigger lot, so --
Hood: And, again, I think maybe the concern is -- and I'm not -- there is a way that they
can control this, too, in CC&Rs and saying you can't subdivide your property. If you
have got a 10,000 square foot lot, you can't split it. I mean they could solve that, too.
The other option is in the development agreement you say this 20 acres you get
however many lots are being proposed -- a maximum of 62 lots and you solve it right
there in the development agreement. You can't resubdivide it any -- you can have -- if
they want to have ten one acre lots, then, they have got ten more acres to get the other
54 lots in and, you know, that's how it could be -- you know, they could really show
some variation in lot size. But if you like the density -- if you like 64 lots on 20 acres,
putting something -- or 62 lots, however many -- in that 20 acres, you could put a
development agreement provision that would, essentially, get some rendition of this
approved forever. If this plat dies, then, that's what is going to run with the land, so just
a thought.
Borup: That maybe makes a lot of sense.
Zaremba: Shall we ask to Mr. Brown to comment on that?
Brown: I appreciate the opportunity. And I know it's late and I know that you guys are
tired. One of the unique things in doing this as a consultant and being in different
jurisdictions -- one of the unique cities that I have worked in recently is Star and Star
has said, you know, our Comprehensive Plan says we are supposed to have three units
per acre, so get three units per acre and as long as you submit three units per acre,
they are not going to tell you that if you have a 58 foot wide lot, instead of a 60 foot lot,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 72 of 86
that that doesn't work. And it is really nice to work with, because you guys decide, your
sewer guys decide how many you want to have in certain areas and, then, we are not
talking about, well, because my site's configured this way and I got these stub streets, if
I can sell a lot with a little bit of a different shape, then, I sell a lot and if, you know, I'm
doing a project, I got, you know, five acres, it's four units per acre, I get 20 lots. Well, I
layout the streets and if I want to make the lots smaller and that's what my market is,
then, I have more open space. And, basically, that's what we are discussing here right
now is that staff is feeling very concerned that a couple of these lots are going to be a
couple hundred square feet smaller than that recommendation and the way that I
accomplish that is I take nines and tens and 12,000 square foot lots and make them
smaller. I can comply with the staff report, that's what my response letter said. I would
prefer to leave it as is and if getting there means I have to ask for a bump up from the
low to the medium, that's what I'm -- what I tried to accomplish earlier, so --
Zaremba: I guess my question would be -- or would you be comfortable with a
development agreement that puts a restriction on the larger lots that they cannot be re-
subdivided, however that's put it--
Brown: I don't have a problem with that.
Zaremba: -- a maximum of 62 lots or --
Brown: I don't have a problem if it's the maximum of 62 lots.
Newton-Huckabay: Minimum?
Brown: Minimum?
Borup: No. Maximum.
Zaremba: Maximum.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Sorry. It's late.
Zaremba: So that they can't be re-subdivided.
Brown: You were pulling my chain there.
Zaremba: So, you would be comfortable with something like that?
Brown: Yes. And I had even suggested that, so--
Rohm: Good. Thank you, Kent. Have we closed the Public Hearing?
Zaremba: No, we have not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 73 of 86
Rohm: Would you like to come forward? You bet.
Dalton: I'm Cherie Dalton and I'm the property owner. My address is 1157 West
Stillwell, Eagle. I've really gone around with Kent about this particular piece of property
that -- I told him it had to be special, that we didn't want cookie cutters, we didn't want
square lots that were all exactly the same size, and we have redrawn it several times
and I have really been tugging, you know, to make it different, make it different than
everybody else's, and so that's what I bring to the City of Meridian is, hey, this isn't a
cookie cutter and we didn't want to see all 5,000 or 8,000 or even 10,000 square lots,
we wanted them to be different, so that we can afford in the same neighborhood a little
bit less expensive house and a very very nice house on the same subdivision parcel
and that's what I would ask you, please, to consider our request as is, because it does
allow us to offer a little bit nicer smaller house, you know, even across the street from
one that has a very large backyard, which we think is a very good mix and to help in the
marketability. Didn't want to bring you patio homes. Just didn't want to do it. Felt that it
was more important we bring you a mixed neighborhood. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Actually, I think we are agreeing with you, at least I am, we are just trying to
find the right way to word it, so that if you decided to sell it before you actually build on
this, somebody else could come along and say, hey, I have got an R-8, I can do
something different than what you envision. We are supporting your vision, we are just
trying to get the words right.
Newton-Huckabay: I think we got it.
Borup: I think a development agreement --
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: -- would be the easiest, because that's permanent.
Zaremba: Yeah. A development agreements works for me.
Rohm: I think we are ready to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-042 and
PP 06-044. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 74 of 86
Rohm: Mr. Zaremba, would like to make a motion?
Zaremba: Well, let's see. Yes, I would be happy to do that.
Borup: 1.1.3. 1.1.2. Do you want to discuss -- 1.1.2 and three --
Zaremba: Yeah. 1.1.2.
Borup: Have the R-4.
Zaremba: And the 1.1.3 is what we would adjust.
Borup: Is that it?
Zaremba: I think so. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ
06-042 and PP 06-044, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20 --
that must be a misprint.
Newton-Huckabay: It's September 21 st, almost 22nd.
Zaremba: The staff report that we have adjusted for today, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval. This is Exhibit B, paragraphs 1.1.2 and
1 .1.3, shall be changed to read that the R-8 zone is acceptable, but a development
agreement shall include a maximum number of lots at 62.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you, folks.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood
- 2135 E. Amity Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48
residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road:
Rohm: All right. Moving right along. The next item on the public agenda is AZ 06-044,
related to Whitebark Subdivision and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Oh, I'd like to
open it with the -- begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 75 of 86
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman ROhm, Commissioners. We, as you said, are moving
right along here. Let's move on to the proposed Whitebark Subdivision. This area has
been discussed quite a bit tonight and it's going to continue to be discussed with this
subdivision, which is to the southeast of the Cottswold Subdivision that was just
discussed. The subject property is directly surrounded by rural residential property, as
was previously discussed, and I don't think we need to go into too much context, since
it's been discussed at length tonight. Along with annexation and zoning the applicant is
also requesting the preliminary plat approval of 48 single family lots and eight common
lots. The total site area is 19 acres and the applicant is proposing an R-4 or medium
low density residential zone. The proposed lots range in size from 10,000 to almost
16,000 square feet. With that current configuration of lots the total gross density for the
project is 2.52 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for this area of low density residential. So, this project is consistent with the
current Comprehensive Plan designation as it exists today. Currently the sole access to
the development will be taken off of Amity Road and beyond this access point the
applicant has proposed three different stub streets, East Bird Pine to the west, East
Scrub Pine to the -- I'm sorry. This is west. It is late. East Scrub Pine to the east. And
to the south it's an extension of South Whitebark Way. Move on to the landscape plan.
The applicant is proposing to set aside 1.44 acres or 7.6 percent of the total site area as
common usable open space and the bulk of it's open space is located in the proposed
micro pathways that can be seen -- one adjacent to the -- the street -- the entry street
there and there is also a micro pathway in the southern portion connecting those two
streets. And the applicant's also proposing detached sidewalks in this subdivision with -
- with trees. The only issues that staff would like to bring up at this time is the fact that
this -- approval of this subdivision, basically, is contingent upon approval of the previous
subdivision, which we talked about, because that previous subdivision, the Cottswold
Village, provides that annexation path for this property. So, there is -- it's discussed
quite a bit in the staff report that if Cottswold Village, for whatever reason, is not
approved through the City Council, this property doesn't have an annexation path and
would not be able to be developed at this time until it did have such a path. That's just a
-- something that is out there and it is described at length in the staff report and included
as a condition in the development agreement that the Cottswold Village Subdivision
moves forward before this proposed subdivision is able to -- to also move forward.
Another issue that was brought up was that I believe the applicant has agreed with. It's
by ACHD and it's something that staff is interested in seeing that the proposed street
that goes in off of Amity Road be constructed adjacent to the two parcels that were not
included in the subdivision, allowing those two parcels to develop directly off of a public
street in the future and that, therefore, they would be able to relinquish their access to
Amity Road when, indeed, they do -- they do develop. The other issue that was brought
up in the staff report -- as shown here on the preliminary plat, there is a hammerhead
proposed at the terminus of South Limber Pine, this area right here. Both ACHD, staff,
and the fire department would all -- have all recommended that this hammerhead be
converted into a cul-de-sac, which the applicant actually shows in his landscape plan as
an alternative -- as an alternative design. Once again, this is coming from numerous --
from ACHD and the fire department and the planning department, really seeing this cul-
de-sac as a better option for this -- for this street section. I think other than those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21 , 2006
Page 76 of 86
issues, it's a pretty straight forward proposal and I stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: I guess I do have one. I'm still confused on the -- this is designated low density.
Does that only allow for an R-2?
Lucas: No. It would allow also for the R-4 designation. The low density is up to three
units per acre, which can be accommodated in both R-2 and R-4 and as I stated earlier,
the density on this project is 2.52 units per acre.
Borup: But an R-2 is 12,000 square feet.
Lucas: An R-2 requires minimum 12,000 square foot lots. Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Mae: Have you had time to read his comments back to the report and do you have any
comments on those?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Mae, yes, I did have a chance to read his
comments. Regarding Exhibit B, the 2.9 -- he is correct, if sewer is located below a
micropath, then, the trees are not required and that's something that's standard that
happens all the time. So, that's usually not a problem. And on the final plat landscape
plan it would be -- it's usually nice that the developer make a note of that on why they
are not putting those trees there, so that the planning staff is able to understand what's
going on there, just the way that works. . And regarding the fire department's comment, I
-- it's one of those standard comments that fire includes and it's kind of one of those
conditions that if this happens, then, they need to comply and as the applicant states it
looks like it's not going to be a problem for them at this paint.
Brown: On the cul-de-sac. Do you want to speak to the hammerhead, too?
Lucas: Oh, and -- you know, I think I -- I spoke to the cul-de-sac already. The
applicant's requesting that it remain a hammerhead and staffs position and ACHD's
position and the fire department's position is that it be changed to a cul-de-sac.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown at 1500 East Iron Eagle. Can you go back to the
other picture, Justin, please. Thank you. Yes, in our design we have -- you can't
believe that this little rectangle has had so many designs and the applicant is back here
smiling, so -- I know he is, without even looking at him. But we have gone through --
Mae: You have a couple that are --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 77 of 86
Brown: Yes, we have. We have gone through many gyrations on this and the difficulty
was is that we didn't want this to be a straight through road to the other development
that you have kind of seen tid bits of below there that we have kind of, in a round about
way, discussed. In our effort to provide these people with frontage, we had always
anticipated doing that. We did have like a five foot landscape island there, but we can
also accommodate what staff's speaking to by doing a license agreement with the
highway district, because we want to fence it off. We don't -- not that those aren't really
nice people over there, but we want to fence that portion off and I'll just leave it at that.
Tried to create a nice entrance. What my client has done is with the other
developments that are going on in the area, we have tried to create lots that are deep
enough and of a size widthwise that would accommodate a shop being in the back.
He's had some builder teams approach him that they would like to, basically, have that
Mr. Shop or whatever in the back, you know, the -- a shop in the back of each one of
these lots and with that in mind and not having, you know, lots of traffic traveling this
area, that's kind of where we have gone with the design. We have -- most of the lots
are closer to the R-2 zoning. We have lots that are near that 12,000, but we do have
some that are as small 10,000. And this hammerhead cul-de-sac is an acceptable fire
department turnaround. It's acceptable to the highway district. But, generally, where
they are allowing those to take place has to do with in-fill. If you are viewed as being in-
fill, then, you're allowed to do them and what my client wants to have happen is that by
having these more rectangular lots it accommodates the people that he feels are going
to build in here, the ones with the shop and the ability to have the room to go passed
the house and go to the back and that's why those widths are -- I mean, ideally, what he
wanted to have was 140 foot deep and 90 feet wide and we have tried to stick to that as
much as we can, accommodating all the other design people that are involved and you
guys are involved in our design. You didn't realize that you're a part of our committee,
but you really are, because you have the ability to tell us whether we can do a
hammerhead or not. And the highway district does, too. It's acceptable. When I spoke
with the highway district staff, they view as from a traffic standpoint that a cul-de-sac is
better trafficwise. But that is drawn to their standards as -- and is acceptable to the
highway district if the city, in turn, comes back and says it's a better design. We have
talked with your staff, they didn't feel that it was that much better than having a cul-de-
sac. We still feel it is from the standpoint that the lot shape that comes out of that is
more along the lines of the design and the market that we are trying to meet. That's the
issue. I'll stand for any questions.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Mr. Brown, just, quite frankly, for the gentleman in the audience, can you speak to
your perimeter fencing?
Brown: We will have solid fencing. I have actually even talked to John before and told
him that you guys don't allow barbed wire, you don't allow hot fences within the city, and
my client -- I went back and spoke to him just prior, because I knew you were going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 78 of 86
ask and they are going to have to sit and talk as to what they both need to do, but we
will put a -- we will fence our side, so that it's solid on our side and, then, work with him
as to how to accommodate and have horses and --
Mae: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: My question for you and probably staff while we are on it, but if you are doing
a solid fence where this stub road is, can you fence across that with --
Brown: Yes, you can.
Zaremba: You make it fenced in a way it can -- that portion can be removed later?
Brown: Yes, you can.
Zaremba: Okay. Otherwise, there is a gap there and there is no point in having a
fence.
Brown: That part we could probably leave with the other, but there is no -- it just
depends on what the developer wants to do. You can leave the -- the hot fence, the
wire fence, on his property in that location, but I have seen them do both. Fence it off.
Zaremba: Okay. Thanks.
Rohm: Thank you, Kent.
Brown: Strictly what it ends up from my standpoint is that if you like the hammerhead --
in the discussions I've had with the highway district, they said that if it -- you felt that
strongly that it was a better one, that they would allow us to build it. It's not that they
wouldn't allow us to build it, so -- but it has to come from the city. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Another question of staff in regards, again, to this hammerhead. Can you give
me reason for not wanting the hammerhead per se?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Mae, as it was discussed by the applicant, the
hammerhead design is something we usually see on a smaller in-fill site where it's -- for
site constraint reasons they are able to use the hammerhead and meet the turnaround
requirements and get the lots that they need. The fire department in general prefers --
and this is from Joe Silva, a discussion I had with him on the phone -- prefers to see
when it's possible the full cul-de-sac as a preference for the fire department. ACHD, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 79 of 86
Kent also said, prefers the full cul-de-sac. And staff -- basically, our preference was
going with what's preferred by fire department and what's preferred by ACHD. When it
comes to the specific design issues and things like that, staffs recommendation is kind
of -- as I say, going along with what's been proposed by the other agencies involved I
think beyond -- and Caleb has a comment.
Hood: I feel like I need to chime in on almost everything tonight and I apologize for that,
but the reason -- and, again, I'm not trying to put words in the fire department's mouth --
but, in general, it's going to be easier to just drive around a cul-de-sac than to do a three
point turn and get out. So, it is more convenient. There is a convenience factor. Now,
it doesn't make it convenient for the lots that are adjacent to it, but someone just driving
around the cul-de-sac to turn around, rather than doing a three paint turn in a
hammerhead, is more convenient. In a fire truck -- even in a large vehicle, some of
these, you know, 19, 20 foot long trucks are going to have to make that same maneuver
where they would, otherwise, just be able to follow the radius of the cul-de-sac. So,
that's why I think they prefer the cul-de-sac to the hammerheads.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: I was just asking if we had public testimony.
Rohm: We haven't yet, but at this time would someone -- anyone from the audience like
to come forward?
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I live at 2025 East Chateau. I'm one of the owners.
The biggest -- or the biggest conversation, obviously, is the hammerhead. What I'm
trying to do there is -- you know, from a -- from a marketing standpoint, tried to make
those lots -- they are not as deep as a majority of the lots are, so what I have done is
tried to make those wider, so that the builders could actually still build their house and
still have a shop maybe along side, instead of in the back. And, you know, I understand
what staff and everybody is saying, but if I understand it also, it is an acceptable
turnaround, it's just everybody else would prefer the traditional. So, I just would
appreciate it if you would at least consider it.
Rohm: Thank you. That's reasonable to request.
Wood: Any questions that you might have? Yeah. I'm trying to hit the market different
than potentially everything else you have talked about tonight. You know, I'm looking at
it there is 48 people that would like to have a large enough lot that they could have a
shop in the back and still build a big house and I've done this elsewhere in Boise and it
was received quite well, so--
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. I don't know
about the rest of you, but I kind of like the hammerhead. It's -- even though they're right
that the fire engine would have to do a three point turn to get out, but it makes access to
each of those lots quite direct and be able to get in and -- I don't know if they have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 80 of 86
little shop in the back where they are working on cars, they can get in and out and just is
-- it looks like it would be easier ingress and egress having the hammerhead there, than
it would using a cul-de-sac. That's at least from my perspective.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? I agree that the lot designs are a better design with the
hammerhead. The number of lots stay the same. I don't -- but I also don't know that all
48 lots are going to be putting shop buildings on.
Rohm: Oh, I agree with that.
Borup: So -- I mean those that don't want a shop building -- you know, there is a few
lots for them. But, likewise, I think the fire department's concern is not getting to the
project, I have never seen them in a big hurry to leave. So, I don't know as another
minute to back out is going to make any difference on the fire service.
Rohm: I agree with that, too. Commissioner Mae, do you have comment?
Mae: For the record probably not, but I guess my whole point is I would hope that this
subdivision doesn't see a whole bunch of fire trucks.
Rohm: There you go. We have to close the Public Hearing. Would you recommend
that we vote?
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 06 dash -- oh,
excuse me. AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-042
and PP 06-044. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
Actually, I gave the wrong numbers. I'm going to do that again. It's a motion to close
the public hearings on AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046 has been made. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? There we go.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I prefer the cul-de-sac. The overall look and consistency and future
consistency of other developments. If we generally only use hammerheads for ends of
projects, I'd like to remain consistent with that and support staff's recommendation on
that. Was that the only -- oh, what about the -- so we didn't change any comments. So,
we only changed -- there is no change.
Mae: Well, the only issue is the hammerhead.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I agree with staff. So, if I make the recommendation I'd make
no changes in the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 81 of 86
Mae: Then, that would be what you want to do, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: If I'm going to, in fact, vote for my motion this time.
Mae: If you're making the motion, if that's what you want to do, that's what you would
do, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: All right.
Mae: But, trust me, I will not tell you what to do.
Newton-Huckabay: That's probably wise.
Mae: Trust me, I know that. Nor would I want to.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-044 and PP 06-
046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21 st, 2006, with
no modifications.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046, to include staff report with no changes. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Aye. So, there is four in favor. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Newton-Huckabay: And we will look forward to seeing Mr. Brown again.
Brown: Thank you.
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for
approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use
Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton
Oliver Keller-1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road:
Rohm: Okay. The last item on our agenda here is -- I'd like to open the Public Hearing
on CPA 06-002, related to Ustick Comprehensive Plan amendment and begin with the
staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This is another Comprehensive
Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The procedures regarding
amendments to maps have already been discussed at this hearing, so I'm not going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 82 of 86
go into those again, regarding the time limits and the changes. This Comprehensive
Plan amendment application proposes to amend the future land use map. The
applicant is proposing to change an existing medium density residential designation to a
mixed use community designation for two parcels, which total approximately 12.37
acres of land located at 1515 West Ustick and 3195 North Linder. The properties are
zoned -- currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County and are not currently within
Meridian's city limits. There are no other annexation, rezone, or plat applications
associated with the request. The applicant does state in the application letter that if
approved, the property owners intend to develop a mix of commercial and residential
uses on these sites in the future. Approval of the subject application would allow the
applicant to apply for various different zoning designations not currently allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan. Under medium density residential, it really is pretty specific to
residential uses, but a change to mixed use community really would allow for various
potential zoning designations, such as community commercial, neighborhood
commercial, as well as limited office, medium, and medium high density residential and
the traditional neighborhood districts. Sample usage could include a clothing store, a
garden center, hardware store, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities and department
stores and all of those uses are drawn directly from the Comprehensive Plan. The
amendment would not change the future land use map designation for any other parcels
or any other features of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant would still be
required to apply for annexation and zoning through the city to move forward with any
development. If this Comprehensive Plan amendment application is approved, the
applicant intends, as I said earlier, to develop a mix of commercial and higher density
residential uses on these parcels. The applicant has submitted -- and I can just move
through these pretty quickly. A conceptual -- a conceptual plan for the development of
1515 West Ustick, which was that square parcel that we looked at right here, which
shows approximately one-third of the site being dedicated to multi-family residential and
the other two-thirds as a mix of office and retail uses. The applicant has not included a
detailed concept plan for the smaller site located at 3195 North Linder, but proposes to
locate a small low intensity office or retail use on this site. As I say, this is extremely
conceptual, but just showing the possibility of locating some structures on this -- on this
corner piece. And one thing about this concept plan that they are showing is all of the
right of way takes that will occur as this intersection expands and so they are taking all
that into account. It really takes quite a bit of that property, almost cuts it in half, leaving
them with a little bit over an acre. But as staff looked at this and even did some minor --
basically schematic drawings, it looks like they would still be able to fit a parking lot and
a couple of buildings on there, even after all of the ACHD takes. Let's see. One thing I
did want to point out on this concept plan, they did -- the applicant labeled this down
here as a future park, which, really, is a mislabeling. On the Comprehensive Plan this
area is designated as public-quasi public, but that doesn't always equal a park, it could
be any number of uses and public-quasi public parcels are, basically, dealt with, as I
read it in the Comprehensive Plan, on a case-by-case basis, that designation is -- can
change is what -- basically what that means. Any number of things could go in there,
whether it be commercial, residential, but it receives public-quasi public, because
maybe a church owned it at the time or there was a plan there for something, but I
talked to parks and they are not planning on putting a park in there at this time. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 83 of 86
we will just cut to the chase here with this application. Staff thought a lot about this and
struggled a little bit -- struggled a little bit making a recommendation on this proposal to
amend the future land use map for these parcels. The major reason for that struggle is
the existing neighborhood center designation that we currently have at the half mile.
Staff struggled -- the neighborhood center concept is described at length in the
Comprehensive Plan and really tries to focus the mixed use kind of node at the half mile
point, rather than at the intersection and after looking at that and thinking quite a bit
about it, staff determined that it wasn't necessarily prohibited in the Comprehensive
Plan to have that exist and, as you can see, the two parcels to the north had already
received a designation of mixed use community, which happened -- let me give a little
bit of background there. This happened in the previous -- this previous decision was
made during the North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan amendment that was
approved on March 14th, 2006, by City Council and during that process these two
parcels were actually discussed as also changing to mixed use community, but the
actual boundary line for that amendment was Ustick Road and so by law they weren't
able to include any changes below the study area. And because of that and because of
previous actions, it seemed logical that -- that we would also allow these two parcels
here to develop in a mixed use type of way, especially considering the impact that the
widening of that intersection would have on any potential residential uses on -- on that
site. Staff has reviewed all these arguments and in the staff report described kind of at
length what's going on there and in the end staff decided to recommend approval of this
-- of this map amendment, with the understanding that -- that when the applicant comes
in with a true development plan and with the annexation and zoning and everything that
goes with that, that they, indeed, come up with something that is different than the
neighborhood concept, that isn't just a simple, you know, commercial center, something,
you know -- I think we could say innovative for the city, something that would really
provide a different feel for the intersection, with a mix of uses and high density
residential and, obviously, some commercial and that's kind of staff's recommendation,
but it's clear that at this point we don't have the ability to tie them to any specific
development plan, because that only can be done through the annexation process and
the preliminary plat process. So, by allowing them -- I just want to make it very clear
that by allowing this designation to go in there, we are, basically, opening up all types of
zoning designations that could go in on that site and at this point we wouldn't be able to
tie them to any specific development plan, because that's just not part of the process
with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. I think with that said, I will stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. And that was a good presentation. Appreciated that. Any
questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. You have got one
minute.
Penland: Good morning. My name is Chris Penland. I'm with Thornton Oliver Keller
and I reside at 4595 North Stampede Way and I have additional material for you, too.
All right. First I'd like to thank staff for their time and patience during this process. Their
input was very valuable and appreciated. I'm here in support of changing the southeast
and southwest corners to mixed use community from medium density residential. As
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 84 of 86
staff mentioned, this process was undertaken during the north Meridian review and was
agreed to somewhat in concept, however, legally it could not be changed at that point in
time. One of the primary concerns that staff voiced was the proximity to the
neighborhood commercial to the east and, hopefully, that could mitigate any concerns
over that. This intersection -- it's really different in many respects from the
neighborhood commercial node. Just to cite a few examples, there are four directions
of travel present and 47 percent more traffic and exposure at the intersection. This will
also be a signalized five lane intersection and one of the primary intersections in north
Meridian. This property is also situated along a primary east-west traffic arterial, which
connects Boise to Caldwell, as well as a north-south traffic arterial that includes a Boise
river crossing. Both of those factors allow for good movement and traffic flow through
the north Meridian area. Individually, each of these characteristics differentiate the two
sites and the convenience oriented nature of the intersection, as opposed to the
destination nature of the mid block commercial. We have also conducted numerous
studies in the past while of north Meridian's growth and population and the resulting
demand. Just give me one second. We have the -- in front of you in the packet and
also demonstrated over there is a detailed analysis, which basically demonstrates that
Meridian has an above average per square foot retail center, which translate into a lack
of retail supply. It is an extensive lack of retail supply, supported also by vacancy rates
in and around Meridian. Right now vacancy rates are hovering about two percent,
which marketwide and also historically is extremely low. What this results in is a lack of
opportunity for business to locate and also higher economics for rents as there is a
shortage of availability and shortage is illustrated graphically over there. And also let
me go to the site plan one more time. We discussed these a little while ago. We have
preliminary plats and new housing indicated in blue, which is really difficult to see from
the light. However, you can see that there is a good concentration of housing growing
in and around this intersection. What we look to do in time is exactly what staff points to
was an innovative development, one that's not going to be your cookie cutter vanilla
strip center that really isn't of note whatsoever. I think a project you can look to as
somewhat of an example are the multi-tenant buildings going up in front of the Majestic
Marketplace. Currently there is one building that's a three color scheme with awning,
gables, much higher finishes than normal. And although that's probably not the
esthetics that would be for here, it's a good example of a departure from the norm. I
also need to note that with the southwest corner ACHD is currently thinking they will
take the entire parcel. That is the plan as of last Friday when I spoke with them. The
property owners would like to continue with the change to mixed use community,
because should ACHD elect not to take it, they will be left with about 1.4 acres, which
really won't be suitable for a residential use. Currently their house will be about ten feet
from the door, if memory serves me properly, on the expanded intersection. And also,
as staff pointed out previously, this is a very preliminary phase and as we move forward
with the annexation and change in zones, we can address the issues and development
concerns at that point in time. And, then, also, I apologize for the misnomer on the
publiC area, if that's the case. In the pre-application meeting it was designated public-
quasi public and I met with the property owner and they said they had been in
discussions and were looking to probably donate that, so my apologies. And if there is
any questions I would be more than happy to answer those.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21, 2006
Page 85 of 86
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Not at this time.
Penland: Thank you.
Rohm: We have three individuals that have signed up to testify. And I think I know
where they are. Gary Palmer, would you like to come forward or were you just more
interested in just lending your support? And Margaret Palmer. Okay. That's it.
Mae: And I would just make note that Mr. Palmer in his presentation your letter is
included in this as well. Well, it's in here.
Rohm: Any discussion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment. To me this makes a great deal of sense to do this. I do
remember a short discussion during the North Meridian Comprehensive Plan and that
discussion didn't continue, because this was outside of the legal boundary of that, but it
makes sense. As the applicant pointed it out, this is going to be a very important
intersection at some time. Currently Ustick is the longest east-west road in the
Treasure Valley. When Linder has an overpass over the interstate it will be the longest
north-south road in the Treasure Valley, making this intersection heavily traveled. I
agree that residential is not -- as if it's not already heavily traveled. Linder, of course,
has the distinction of having both a railroad crossing and a river crossing and that
focuses a lot of traffic on it, but ACHD is planning to make this a large intersection and
my opinion is that it would not be appropriate for residential or certainly not single
family, but it should be exactly what the applicant is asking for.
Rohm: Good. I think we are all in agreement. Any additional comments?
Moe: I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I actually live in this area and I -- my sincerest hope is that
one of those four corners somebody comes in with a gas station and a convenience
store, because there are none in north Meridian.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-002.
Mae: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 21,2006
Page 86 of 86
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-02. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 06-
002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21,2006, with no
changes.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval to City Council of
CPA 06-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move to adjourn.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Good night, folks.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:11 A.M.
(TAPE ON ~~.~~".oF :Hj::~ROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVI!Q.=.__J~
MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIR
II
I /b I q6/i11i/1
DAI~~~/I'",,,
~ (}~f\P~ :.r..... ~
.... rA';'-
... <'() s"
LE~~:A'3.i -
;'"'Ch ~~:::
..- -,: ""t Ao. \,} / ....
~ '{j - ~(j'-,- 13\. /".D .f
~-.If............ /.....~....
"/, a -,- ''P'- ,.......
"1'1'1 fJ(JI'!T'i, ,,' ",,,,
If);" \ l'