2006 05-04• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. "
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X Keith Borup
X David Moe -Vice Chairman _X David Zaremba
~' X Michael Rohm -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
`~` 3. Consent Agenda:
:,-,y
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting: Approve as Amended
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300
feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike
Robnett - 1760 West Cherry Lane: Table to May 18, 2006
4. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
`:: ~ ~` 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
Construction -northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
• •
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
7. Continued Public Hearing from Apri120, 2006: AZ 06-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low
Density Residential) for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village,
r LLC -north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
8. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-016 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8
common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village
- Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC -north side of Cherry Lane west of
Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
9. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation
and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick
Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
10. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-018 Preliminary
Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a
'°' proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar
`t._5 Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to
~~ City Council
-~
;~
=`
;A~~
11. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-017 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 11.79 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells
{~ ~ Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells
fl Street: Recommend Approval to City Council
. ,:
~~~:~=y~ 12. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-017 Request for
:~~-j
,,
Preliminary Plat approval of 84 building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79
s acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B
Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Recommend Approval
:=x;~a to City Council
~~~ Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-012 Request
13
.
"x'~
.
for a Conditional Use Permit for 18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed
''~~' R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC -
~j~~> 675 and 715 Wells Street: Recommend Approval to City Council
.'
-:~
14. Public Hearing: RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L
'; '(Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz -
F 608 West 3rd Street: Recommend Approval to City Council
"`~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -May 4, 2006 Page 2 of 3
r ~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
z~
z °,~~~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
~o t ~
~k TD~i^' St ~`~~: t5~fi
~~. F
i
'y ..
'` '
}'
~ 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23
_ commercial lots on 31.37 acres in a C-G zone for Centrepointe
Subdivision by Winston H. Moore -northwest corner of Ustick Road and
Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66
acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15
Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai
"~ Partners, LLC -south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle
Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 101
''~~ single-family residential and multi-family residential lots with 6 common
lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots in a C-G
zone for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC -south of East
~e: Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval
i1 to City Council
~;
~.
~•
.i~i}
4
,,.
...~~•
3.~
`:r~~
f'~~}~,~
r '1
c R"~F
T^_~44
;,. ~~.:K
+~;
~ y',~
~ ' i'.
+~ ~± H7' N ~ qty
rye at
yy l ~j_
tr ~'~'~Ft rte' ?'~~
fit:r. ~ _
Sri.. ~ A~ ~i~
~±
~f~
~;;.:
n{':~
~._:: ,~_
`~'~'
~~~r
Y'
~.~~:
zS,.;:
tit?:
~.
i=- N
;;.
~.,
~''.
~`.
t ,~;
';;`
U
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll-call Attendance:
aC Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
~c David Moe -Vice Chairman ~C David Zaremba
~C Michael Rohm -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting: App~v~ o-S
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300
feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike
Robnett -1760 West Cherry Lane: ~Cii,l~ ~ Clflt~ 1~~20C)l,0
4. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast comer of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: ~. -'~ ~R~ i~p~nD~,1 °k~
5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
Construction -northeast comer of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: f~,Q.CC(Y`lflr'~1d
~~ ~ C~,r~
6. Continued Public Hea~lring from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Re uest
q
to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
(CUP 01-026) by adding additional ofFce lots, changing building and
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -May 4, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
~:
Y ~ZoA .:
~.
k,~:', a
L ~
~ -.~~'~~'f r,~{ ~ .k~r-. '~~
k f~:
~ ~ t!'f~ s u ~ x ,
~' ~ ~ ' n,, x.~ _~
~ ~3~,~,'~.'~4,~-1i;°~
7~M ~ ~3]
r ~ ~ c
a
f~`u~ ~,:
"y~3 ~ t:'
ty a
;,-,~ ~_
,~ t#~ n ~t ;, .,
~r r~~ .~
f
'~~, ~ a
~~~~,-t
F
~,
.r
i:'
~~:
i
~.
~= .
k..
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: ~- CC~~ ~ppr0~C~1 -}c+
C.uuYtCi~
7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low
Density Residential) for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village,
LLC -north side of Cherry Lane test of Black Cat Road: Qp.~~~~
~pprova~ ~ ~~
~~ 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-016 Request for
"t' Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8
common .lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village
~; Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC -north side of Cherry Lane west of
Black Cat Road: 2QC~d ~ra~t,~1 ~o ~I~UJr~.9 _
9. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation
and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick
Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
~;. 12~.C.~mrnen~ ~~~d.l -4-0 lam' Ca`unC:~J
.. -~~ 10. Continued Public Hearin from A ri0, 2006: PP 06-018 Preliminary
9 P
"'``~
i Plata royal of 42 buildin lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a
pP 9
~~ proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar
~~~ Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: (~A~~~ ~0.~
•
-a., ~, ~~ll Y1C~ g
~~ 11. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-017 Request for
j ~~~ Annexation and Zoning of 11.79 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells
"'A`ir Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells
, ~
~~_ Street: ~m~~ /~p-~~aJ -lt~ ~.r1C~1 .L
,
~:~, ,~
nc;,~'
12.
Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-017 Request for
{ !n Preliminary Plat approval of 84 building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79
'` acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B
~'~ Developm
e
nts, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: ~.COYYIYYI~
~
~
~4~ ~1Y1~
k 13. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-012 Request
,'~ for a Conditional Use Permit for 18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed
~,~ R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC -
`~~ 675 and 715 Wells Street: 12~.C®rVlh'~1~~ AsV~1 ~
`'~ ~1
~;a 14. Public Hearing: IZZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L
'(Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town zones for Stan Lanta by Stan Lantz -
~
N~
~_. YOVA-~ `~ ~-1--~t.,~ c~1l.YlC~
608 West 3 Street: 12Q.COi°Yt1i~1
J
-~~
~~ 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23
~;
r' commercial lots on 31.37 acres in a C-G zone for Centrepointe
~~~~ Subdivision by Winston H. Moore -northwest corner of Ustick Road and
~~ Eagle Road: ~,C1~tYl1`Yl~ oVGL9 ~O~G
'`~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -May 4, 2006 Page 2 of 3
~~
"' ~~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
S
.'
2'^.;
xh~~;
,~ 4 ~ _._ _
JJ tr 4.5 f+ ~
} ~C
~ 7; ~^~~
7T ~C~ ~,1 ~7u [~~ii
r , . .;
~ y •.
L ~3t
~ •
~' ~ t ., 3
~t i A't~? I
~ `;'
P~` ~ '. ya
M~ ~~~
~ ;@'''tl
y
~}+ .
~ j4tt w~ y '~3-
k~k:~A M t ~?; ~ efp~f
~ ~
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66
acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15
Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai
Partners, LLC - sout of East Overland R ad and-awa`e~t of South Eagle
Road: ~.~®Y'Y~Yy1 f0 ~ ~ ~~ C ~~'~"
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 101
single-family residential and multi-family residential lots with 6 common
lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots in a C-G
zone for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC -south of East
Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Y`yllm ~`
y C
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -May 4, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
t, - -
.,r j ~...
** TX C~TION REPORT >~ pS OF MRY 01 '06 ~ PRGE.01
r' CITY OF MERIDIRN
'~ DRTE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMD?x STRTUS
;,~ 04 05101 1407 3810160 EC-S 01'35" 003 169 OK
05 05/01 1409 PUBLIC WORKS EC-S 00' S6" 003 169 OK
~ 06 05101 14 10 8848723 EC-S 00'56" 003 169 OK
~
`` 07 05101 1412 WATER DEPT EC-S 00' S6" 003 169 OK
;;~;; 08 05101 1413 2088840744 EC-S 00'58" 003 169 OK
09 05101 14 15 8985501 EC-S 00'56" 003 169 OK
:~:` 10 05/01 14 16 LIBRARY EC-S 00'56" 003 169 OK
°J; 11 05101 14 18 2083776449 EC-S 00'55" 003 169 OK
i '; 12 05/01 14:19 3886924 EC-S 00'56" 003 169 OK
i '~'.'' 13 05/01 14 21 P-AND-Z EC-S 00' S7" 003 169 OK
14 05101 1422 RLL AMERICAN INS EC-S 00' S5" 003 169 OK
15 05101 14 24 FIRE DEPT EC-S 00' S6" 003 169 OK
~ 16 05101 14:25 208 ~ 2682 EC-S 00'58" 003 169 OK
~'
'; 17 05101 14:27 208 387 6393 EC-S 00'56" 003 169 OK
18 05/01 1428 RDR CTY DEUELMT EC'S 00'57" 003 169 OK
19 05101 14 30 20885052 EC-S 00'57" 003 169 OK
20 05/01 14 31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3-S 01'51" 003 169 OK
21 05101 14 34 IDRHD RTF~ETIC C EC-S 00'57" 003 169 OK
i 22 05/01 1435 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC-S 00'58" 003 169 OK
`t• ? 24 05101 14 40 POLICE DEPT EC'S 00' S7" 003 169 OK
25 05101 14 ~ 42 2088r~701 Ft'-S ca• Sa" ~~ ~ ~a n~
;.,.;
i;c
i.;'2
CITY OF MERIDIAN
'''` ~"
~1P MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
'`r`;Ira Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 Bast Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
s~; `~
- Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planni
~t ng and Zoning Commission are expected to be
bufhful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter
"
r
'!' .
1• Roll-call Attendance:
' '':
~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Bore
David Moe -Vice Chairman p
,'; David Zaremba
Michael Rohm -Chairman
;.~:~~
:Y~ 2• Adoption of the Agenda:
'' "`
~tf
\ 3. Consent Age
nda;
~, A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
~
''~'~ g. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive throu
h withi
g
n 300
feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike
Robnett -1760 West Cheny Lane
:
x<'
~~
~~' 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for S
S
d
~. un
ance
ubdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast comer of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road;
""`'
a.~;
a',~> S. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006; PP 06-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 co
~: mmercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
Construction -northeast comer of U
ti
k R
( s
c
oad and Meridian Road:
r
-'
~` ~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Request
to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Pla
d D
;'~ nne
evelopment
(CUP 01-026) by adding addition
l
ff
~~ a
o
ice lots, changing building and
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites f
S
or
undance
`,'?A ~ Meddlan PPVtning and Zoning Commission M
ant ~entad at public meetings sha~ ~~ p ~pel~, of fFre Clry of Median 3
n9 accommodadon fo
tli
-:.::-~.
•w., i~ r
sabllifias related b doatments anya, hearings
please oontatx the city Clerk's OHice at 8B!)-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
~: _h ~`+. MV~l
~ ~ ~ i~ ~
f~f~~~~~-~~ ~~t;~ a~
$~°#fr yk,~Y . ~,~"~ T~
~ ~ ~',~
~ ti ~z
& ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~ x~~ 3
` ( u ~ '
r~o~ a i
~; ~ ,
~~a ~ ua sF Y-}la
a~-Y ~ y
r~3tg.~ _ ~~a
'~ s ,~ 7 rl` , .
~ ~
rt~3 i :~~
.,,~ ~ :? -
t
1r~ ~~~ a ~ '~~ ~~
a~x G ;_, _ r
~, ~ ~ a '
ti~
~~
~,~x 3,s:~' ~.
~ ~~.,<l~
'',<F~
'~` e ,~ ~ l
ygy~4` ~~ke
~ ~ ~~'
j51 5 4
~d SI, fi ~ .Y
-~~ '7: ~ _
-,~
~;
=; ,;
** TX CONFI~ON REPORT >~
DATE TIME TO/FROM
24 05/05 00 30 3810160
25 05/05 00 33 PUBLIC WORKS
26 05/05 00 34 8848723
27 05/05 00 36 WRTER DEPT
28 05/05 00 37 2088840744
29 05/05 00 39 POLICE DEPT
30 05/05 00 41 8965501
31 05/05 00 42 LIBRARY
32 05/05 00 44 2083776449
RS OF MAY 05 45 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDit STATUS
EC--S 01'43" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'01" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'00" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'01" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'02" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'00" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'00" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'01" 003 199 OK
EC--S 01'00" 003 199 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
"Affhough the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter.'
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
x David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting: ~p~-Ipvp„ AS ,p-
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06.010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300
feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike
Robnett -1760 West Cheny Lane: 'Tgblc io rYlOta 1g-21101~
4. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-OOJJ1 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast comer of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: I?aClJmmerld ~rotfA 1 ~
~.+y Crn.><nciLS
5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06.014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
Construction - northeas Ccomer of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: ~-CO'Y`YY'!~'td
Af~~ X10
6. Continued Public He "ng fr~ m~April 20, 2006: CUP 06.011 Request
to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
(CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance
Meridian Plarming and Zoning Commission Meeting /a_genda -May 4, 20U6 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the Clty of Meridian.
Anyone tlesiring accommodation for dlsabiliGes related to dotatmeMs and/or hearings
please contact the City Clark's Office at 888-4433 at least d8 hours prior to the public meeting.
.:; a
fi
y~ ~ r1~,:
~ ~'"a ti ~ ; a. ~. ~'~„
6 z +, x
7x~ S~S~Vi `~
3 ~ 3 ~
~ ~j : ~~
i
a ,~t. ' t~
~ tiy~.
F~f ~F ~.t~'~'p Ci~~
+ °'
i•
~w ~y;Syrs i~ ~ ~;, _
~ rf T r i' _
~~Y_ ~ rS C , ~ _
~~,, 5~ ~I rt' ~ 3
r yf ~ ~ a _; I;+ ,
~{, M~ ~~
r
a ~ ~i~~f e c•. Q
•t I'd ~~~..
3:~ e ~'E ~
~~s'
~ ~ n
y ti~~~4 ~f F~ _ F
,'y ~ - .
M~ ~ ` ~~
y Y _
S ~~ C~
~~ i` f, i:,7 Tp
~~ ~ - i o' ; n;.
b ~ ~ r ,~7~,~ _
~`r '~47r ~e -::~~a~
. z._
~s .;.,
t +r 3
i ,~ +' c
~, d E F% ~" ~ ~; ~ -
~ t
3 "Y
3 d< <,' 4~ r ,~t7~"'t , ~ ~~
` i~ A Jy
h ,
y+ A
1 f
„,,-
** TX CGNFI~ION REPGRT ** AS OF MRY 05 '
6
0
0 4 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDI AN
DATE TIME TG/FRGM MDDE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
01 05/05 00 45 3886924 EC-S 01'00" 003 199 OK
02 05/05 00 47 P-AND-Z EC--S 01'00" 003 199 OK
03 05/05 00~Q8 FIRE DEPT EC-S 01'00" 003 199 OK
04 05/05 00 50 208 888 2682 EC--S 01'02" 003 199 OK
05 05/05 00 52 208 387 6393 EC-S 01'00° 003 199 OK
06 05/05 00 53 ADR CTY DEUELMT EC-S 01'01" 003 199 OK
07 05/05 00 55 2088885052 EC-S 01'01" 003 199 OK
~~.~r 08 95/05 00 57 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 01'59" 003 199 OK
09 05/05 00 59 IDRHD RTHLETIC C EC-S 01'02° 003 199 OK
10 05/05 01 01 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'01° 003 199 OK
``` 11 05/05 01.03 2088886701 EC-S 01'01" 003 199 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
°A/though the Cfty of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll-cal! Attendance:
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~C Keith Borup
X David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting: ApprdYe. AS >~~
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; CUP 06.010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300
feet of a residence for Cheny Crossing Drive Through by Mike
Robnett -1760 West Cherry Lane: Tgblc -b ~{ 1g~20pl,p
4. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast comer of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road: RaCprYlmeXld A1phro~.1 ~
~.~y CoLDncU
5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06.014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
Construction - northeas ~COmer of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: '~-C4'Y`XY`~Zd
~'oY0.l ~
6. Continued Public He "ng fr~ o~rm April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Request
to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
(CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance
Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission MeeBng Agenda -May 4, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings strap become property otthe Clq~ of Meridian.
please yeontaCte a City Clerk's Offices at 866-4433 atmleas~t 48 hours prior to the publ~m~ ling.
~,~g , i~t ~~~ T~~~~ a ~`„
^ ';
t
~ ~, 3s~ ` ,~ , ~ .
A.~ K ,
U4~1 ~ t ~ }y".
a i?'j-f r ~ k, ~~
~. . ' ~ ..
~i¢~~X~~f A ~,ti,4~
4+ m~ ~K,~ r5 _
.:y ~' ~.+
~f*r 'ji ~},l'~sC 13a }~'kr 4~
mob-.
,: ~ '
"~f~~ 1
y7 ,,,,551 c. -~i
~a L~ t} JIIr "qr -
~ fi~y~ ~~L 4a~~~..
4 1 F
! ~,;
Y
~ ~ ~r 1 d.f{
p ~.ii
"'Qtf ~N~~ fi§ ;~~ ~ -
vd ~ ~F~~ $ dq:t. r n~ v.
,~~,~
~~~i
~ ~ r t c+'
~ 'E °r3~i apt ~~, ~. > ,
~. y~~t
~ ~
t"
~d~.2- r g ;. ;ii~ ?'; -
_~~+ ~ ~. ~y,r~a
3c a- 'i~ -
~~ ~;~+,~ R~~gyy,~~.
., ~~i'
s~ 2~ L T~ F ~ ~~ ~{ J
+~ iV `4~- ti9
.r
R ~ '~~ t 4. ~ ~,
~ k ``yam r 4 S..
'~~t #" 1~
k . 1 ~ ~i;z ~a,
,~ `y~ _ '-
r
c,dµ l~~,
i
,~ ~
.~_~~
;:.,
~:
. ~~-:
,.
.re~~g',
~. h .
"~,
~<
~~
F,~~.
. :;
r
.-
;x ;
,,;
,~~.
:~xt~
,,.:
.:;
r,l
;'
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 4, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 4, 2006, was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Newton-Huckabay and
David Moe.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig Caleb Hood, Jennifer Veatch, Mike Cole,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to convene our
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and we
will begin with the roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Rohm: Thank you. The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and
the first item is the Consent Agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the April 6th,
2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-010. Any comments before we make a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do, actually, have comments on both.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: On the minutes on page one, near the top, it indicates that four of us were
here and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay missed the meeting, then, about three-
quarters of the way down the page she is credited for seconding a motion that I made. I
would guess either Commissioner Moe or Commissioner Borup was the second on that
one. Anybody want to fess up to that?
Borup: Sure.
`7 I X ~ kt* _ ~ ~ ~ 1
lY~ T r~ ~ f~~f
Fem.>~ ~' ~~~~~f _
~ ~ n
hµ~r v-
w a } ~~ +
~- r~
~ ~ .<~ k
~.~ 3~~~
U }y
~`~ SK~~~C S~i ~~~
~~~~"~' ass die;
1 y.;~,^:
r r3 •~
x~ k };f r},~ ~ ~ ~
~~ f~~ ~;
h
~ ;pry, `k yF. . j'~'.
~4 i f ~~
7 ,i` t~~ 'wry ~~~ - _i ,s
~ ~h A ~ f ,
~Y+~~,
eta v ~ >
(~+Fi~ sr -~ err ~ f,.a+s~,~
~`t~` ~~ _.~~. '~
R `~ ~
~.~' ~ a 3
E k i.
r
r
~~wx e ,
if rr 7~r:,~L '~' ~, f~~:
a,F
~ Ii
i
i~z~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
;,~,,; May 4, 2006
i4~~ Page 2 of 84
Zaremba: Okay. Let's give Commissioner Borup credit for seconding that motion.
Then, on page 19, there is a large paragraph in the middle, about three lines up from
the bottom, there is -- the middle of the sentence begins: Applicant will work with the
'`-`_'~ ~ buffer on Lot 9. I believe that should say applicant will work with staff on Lot 9 to solve
the common drive and buffer problem. I would change the word buffer to staff. Those
~~:~~ are my only comments on the minutes. I have comment in the form of a question on the
'..
Findings. That would be Exhibit B, conditions of approval, section one of planning
department. I think in the motion we added a couple of things to that, one of which was
that no speaker system is approved with this CUP application, although the applicant
may later submit a separate one. Also added a paragraph that says that the applicant
has volunteered to add trees and landscaping on both sides of the fence. And mine
says there was a third one, although I don't have the minutes yet. Does anybody
remember -- this is the drive-in over on the corner of Linder and Cherry. ~'
~` ~Q
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The trees and the -- '~
~;
Zaremba: The trees and the no speaker.
._
Newton-Huckabay: -- no speaker. No lighted sign. But that was --
~~, Zaremba: We discussed no light, but that would come up in a sign application.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
'~ Zaremba: And we discussed some striping and some -- and a sign on the island, but
didn't make that part of the motion.
_" Rohm: Maybe the best thing is to drop that from this Consent Agenda and, then, be
able to pull the discussion from -- from the minutes.
Zaremba: That would be my motion on that one, would be to have staff take this one
back and check the minutes for those two or possibly three items. But I agree it's
probably two and, then, put it on the next agenda. End of my comments.
Rohm: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. With that, then, could we get a motion to
approve the Consent Agenda as adjusted, with minutes changed as per Commissioner
`~~ Zaremba's comments?
t
i ~3
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda, only
including the minutes of the April 6th meeting and Item B has been dropped. All those
~. ~~ in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
,, ~.~.
,;
~~f~~~~ x ~`" ;fi
n~~=~ ~~:
,r~:~t,~,~ '
t.
~.~yy t +_ '.
4 J ~
~& Qk 1 ~
~ ~~
„ 3?.r?r'`~~ 'rr!.'^-off
._Y ....-
` ''. ~''.
~ ~'~r r~ ~- ~ s
-' .~.
~, '• ~~
~'~ '' ~ ' v
+~z~Sy,Rt7
~ rt ~~~r ~? K i^ ~~
r ti ,
k~ i3ir t¢ Fr'' rl
~i~nr ~.
E,_-,,
~~;~
t*~`~,~~
.f '~.px., „~~~.
4.
Yt
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 3 of 84
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~'~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to -- oh, before I open this, have some comments. Many of
you attend these Planning and Zoning meetings infrequently and I'd like to talk just a
little bit about the procedure that's used and what we do -- we will open up a hearing for
a particular project and the first thing we do is we ask staff to give their comments.
What they do is they talk about a project in terms of the UDC and the Comprehensive
`;ti.~ Plan. They kind of spell it out from that perspective, just as it conforms to the laws of
the City of Meridian. At such time that they have completed their presentation, the
~„ applicant has 15 minutes to present the project and what they do is they present it from
V
a sales perspective. They try and sell the project to us, based upon the value back to
the city. Once those two presentations have been made, then, we take public comment
= and everybody has an opportunity to speak to the project and they will be heard. And
- that's the procedure that we use and there is some time limitations and as we move
through this we will talk more about that.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: IZZ 06-001 Request for
a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans
-.. Construction -northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Request to
modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
~- (CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and
parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction -northeast corner of
.,. Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Rohm: But to start off with, I'd like to open up the continued Public Hearing from the
April 20th meeting of RZ 06-001, continued Public Hearing PP 06-014, and CUP
06-011, all related to Sundance Subdivision No. 5 and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There is also a fourth
application with the file numbers you just mentioned. You do not have to act on that
tonight. It is a miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement that's
?: currently in effect for this site, which leads me to the presentation of the subject project.
It was approved in 2001 as part of Sundance Subdivision. There were four office lots
that were platted in the R-8 district and the applicant is, essentially, cleaning that up, if
you will, and proposing to rezone the area outlined in green there on the screen to an
L-O and office district. It is 5.4 acres. There are 12 commercial lots. Sorry the scan
didn't come in too well, but, trust me, there is 12 commercial lots. There is cross-access
µ :t f
~u ~ ~Y; 1
SF f.
i-~J~ r_,
~, r
~'4`2 ^ Pi y'.'.
b~ ~
z.
i4.
~ ~-.-'Y'ric ~ 4
~ ~~- ~<
~ ~:
~ ~
~'y ~k--f'H •~
s1
~ jt~^ i TL°: tiff.
' Y° ~~
~ ~^ j1 1
' ,~ v` f .
~, ~ `Mtn
,. ~
~.RT l r1, i '~ yr F
~ x
_... ... ... tra
^;~s
.,,
~~m'~ .r °' r~
E. ?i~ ~
L P,
fi, y~p,
i" F M ~
~~~ iC.
p.C, t t
.g~~ a ;3?: ~ii~
,~~.
x~;-~
~` -,
• -~'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
'~;' Page 4 of 84
~k' for all 12 of the lots to use. Two access points into the site. This kind of cross-hatched
area here is an entrance to Meridian Road. And, then, there is also an access here to
Ustick Road and the drive aisles, if you can use your imagination a little bit -- actually, I
think I have a landscape plan that will show it a little bit better. The drive aisles. So, all
-x of the lots within the subdivision can use two access points. There is also a stub street
_ to this property through the residential portion of Sundance. Staff is recommending that
they extend the driveway to that stub street, so the residents within Sundance can get to
~•~:h the office lots without having to get onto the arterial street system and -- and so that is in
the staff report. Also while I'm on that topic, there is also a condition there that a note
be placed on the plat. This access is about 450 feet, I believe, away from the
intersection. This one's a little short of that. I think it's around 400 feet. In case this
access does become a problem in the future, I have talked with ACHD and we would
like them to, basically, be the enforcer if there is a life safety issue in the future, they do
have the ability to close that access down here and, then, all access would have to be
through that subdivision. I'm going to jump back to the aerial real quick and it is at a
scale that you can't really see it too well. There are some existing homes here and,
~` then, here is your -- kind of your -- it's not really a collector, there is front-on housing, but
that's one of the main entrances into the residential portion of Sundance Subdivision.
So, that's where the driveway would tie in and, then, they could get out to Ustick Road.
I think maybe just one more point. This is a very clean application from staffs
~~~` perspective, as I mentioned earlier. It's kind of a clean-up. The Conditional Use Permit
. is proposing some additional lots, as I pointed out in the plat, there are 12 where four
y',T, was approved originally. It was a pretty inefficient use of the land. There is over five
~~! acres here and those four lots just -- like I said, it wasn't a very efficient use of land. So,
there are 12 lots here. They also -- the applicant also requested to have approval to
°~~".' construct or possibly construct adrive-thru in this general location on -- I believe it's Lot
,x" Staff is recommending that that not be granted with this application. It is close to
8
~
~
: .
residences. We would want the neighbors to have another shot at that in the future. It
;,
,.
~~~~
does say for a financial institution, but sometimes those can be pretty heavy traffic
y:~ generators or at different times when some people may have some concerns. So, if, in
k fact, adrive-thru is wanted on this site in the future, it would -- the way the staffs report
is written, would need to come back to you again for that approval. I think I'm going to
~=~~~~ keep it short and sweet this evening and that's the staff report in a nutshell. Staff is
µ recommending approval of the subject applications and I will stand for any questions
"'~
~` you may have.
~'` Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
~.::,.
"'`~ Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
°~~ Moe: Yeah, Caleb. I just wanted to make sure, you know, through the -- through the
report I did notice that the applicant was looking to do some commercial in this as well
~~° and staff has recommended no on that as well; is that correct?
xfG'r ag
~ f ;:
k 7;' ',::d ~'S:
i
tvi f~~
°4jC~~~ /'~ '.
1 _
,..
~'~~~s~"+'~ "'
,s,~, ~;
.M ~ ~J. r„ r-^
~~ i ;
~ ~~~ ' ~
~ {5 i
~' $"~~~~F ~°
r~„ ~.1
~: ~:,.
'}:i
;:~-~_
4~
=~;
~~~~
,~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 5 of 84
Caleb: Just a clarification. I did contact the applicant when I was working on this report.
~'` The letter -- the submittal letter did talk about a retail aspect and I did talk with them and
said, you know, the office zone is really more for professional offices and those types. It
is their intent to just have those uses that are allowed in the L-O zone, conditional uses
as well, if it does call for a conditional use, but no retail uses.
~;~ Moe: Thank you.
=r Rohm: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chair, yes, I would ask one of Mr. Cole, if I may. In the conditions of
approval under the Public Works Department, there is a 2.3 that talks about how water
service is done. Are you likely to want to require them to loop their water system, have
a two connections? And, if not, then, forget it. If so, should we state that?
_~.~::
``~5~ Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it's, actually, already looped through this.
~'`
During the Sundance portion of this when it was platted as Sundance, they have a
;\ ~ connection through the -- to the east, to the extra driveway that Caleb talked about
..fr,a earlier, and also they go out and connect to the west through the northernmost entrance
.':}',~ there. So, we have already got a loop through there.
,~.
~~~~~'~ Zaremba: Thank you.
~,- Cole: Thank you, sir.
~'` Zaremba: That's it.
Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please,
~~:~ state your name and address for the record.
~~~ Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with
Toothman Ortman Engineering on behalf of the applicant, 9777 Chinden Boulevard,
Boise. I don't have a whole lot to add, other than what staff has already discussed.
.._i_ Regarding the request to modify the development agreement concept plan, it was pretty
~, _~
;:,: sketchy and as staff mentioned, it was an inefficient use of land and that's even more so
_rP- true today, just four or five years later, as you can imagine. With regards to the -- to the
~`_~ drive-thru, we would request that those -- that restriction be removed. You know, that's,
LL of course, at your discretion, but we are here for a conditional use modification. It's a
Public Hearing we are limiting our request to one drive-thru and only for a financial
~~: institution on two specific lots. So, we provided Caleb with a concept for how that would
~r;
be done. So, I'd like to ask you to consider that. And the only other item that I woul
like to ask you to consider or reconsider, items 1.1.4 and -- of the preliminary plat
condition -- recommended conditions of approval and item 1.3.2, the recommended
' '~~ conditions for the Conditional Use Permit. Both deal with the proposed access on
Ustick. That access was approved by ACHD back in 2000, I believe it was, or 2001 in
;- ~ Y~ this development agreement and the subdivision was approved and, in fact, they -- they
! .'~ !'
!' .~ ~ ~Fi•. ..
~ ~ ',:.
S
,a.l y~~~ ~ Gth`~ 3
r C',y 3i '
s1~`t ,i
n'~i L
-~ .J rl;,
'try' -1'..~s ~ _.
~z ~ ~,'S4r~„ it~~'..
"'s~31]~~ h~a`~' ~ - ~t
~~ t §
~41 i {~V ~
~! Y t~ ~ l.~ '-
5=f ~ r
tR ,Krr 3 tr ~.. 1~
}}G W" 1 '.cwY'
„C
4 ~« '`5y`
L~.. ;
3~J.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 6 of 84
~: `.
purposely -- there is a common area of 20 feet surrounding this -- 20 feet surrounding
this property along Meridian and Ustick. They purposely platted those out as accesses
there, realizing that the access on Ustick did not quite meet their separation standards
from the intersection. I would request that that -- those conditions be removed from the
conditions of approval, if you elect to approve this, or recommend approval, since that --
I really don't think that that application is any more likely or should not be any more
likely to be taken away than other access that ACHD has approved through a
development application. They approved these applications. At times down the road --
sometime down the road, no pun intended, they will -- they will add a restriction for right-
in, right-out only and build a center median. That can change the access, but that's
dealt with at that time. This application has been reviewed by ACHD, both in 2001 and
now, and they have approved that access and so I would request that you would
remove those two conditions. But other than that, I have reviewed the staffs report, all
their recommended conditions of approval, and I have no other objections or issues, so
I'd stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Questions of the applicant?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mokwa, on the last subject you were discussing, there is
actually two parts of it. Are you in agreement with making Santiago Court connect
through, being a roadway or driveway, instead of just a pedestrian path?
Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, we hadn't originally shown it that way, but we
are in agreement with that and we will do that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: And lassume -- and the other part in that, too, is a direct access to -- to Ustick
and you already assumed that also, that there would be no direct access to Ustick.
Mokwa: Yes. We agree with that and will note that on the plat.
Borup: So, the only -- the only part was just the part about potentially closing that
access.
~ Mokwa: That's correct.
,q
%': Borup: Not the whole -- not that whole paragraph.
"~ Mokwa: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if I can add -- yeah. Just to be
;~~-~ clear, the last sentence of preliminary plat site specific condition 1.1.4 says: Specifically
the note shall state that direct lot access to Ustick Road may be prohibited in the future
,~' if ACHD deems it necessary. I would -- I guess I would argue that that is always a
_ condition of an approach approved by ACRD and I don't think this approach is any more
`~''~'` likely or less likely than any other that they have approved.
Y~ ~
~,
~4 ~ ~ ~. ~,
~ ~Kt 4 f C' ]]°L ~iiy _
? ) ~~
t *~
.~1V:,, .'~:4. ~ ..
'~. n1.1 ~ j'- ~
~~ F
f`~s+ K
k;. ~ ,~'
~a
~_~~
k F.,;; r s n~:
~;' t = ~
F
~~~'~~ 1
, ~ {{.
li Iil
-'x wrk~ ,~.~ra nYa
~~i-,'r~ ,fit ~,
? k__ tY.'. ~, ~.x'
t~=? ~ k
.~ ~ '_
~ r ~u { t
Ht~~1' ^v '~ 5
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~
r ~=,~.e s~.L k
~, h;'s ~ iAY ¢ ,
„ { w
P 4 ~'x
~ ?~# n~ r
i
i t j .
C~, L^ 1 t
~s ` t s ~5;
1` ~..
r--}}~rr,, ~ ~yy~,
~1~~ f ~il~~ ~rH ~
`,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
~~~
j, .~;; ~ May 4, 2006
Page 7 of 84
~Ft~:
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? I think that I'd like to talk to you a little bit
about the drive-thrus. Typically, this Commission wants to see as a separate
application on a drive-thru and with this Conditional Use Permit it wasn't so designated
..
:
as part of the application specifically and I think that in fairness to the neighbors and --
t and previous applications and applications in the future for drive-thrus, I think
consistency is important and I think that it would be better from our perspective if we
;~:~
,~:. wn the road. That would
were to suggest that a separate application be made for that do
~,
-~~
be my take on that and I would be interested in --
y"'~=~, ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
~~=~ Borup: Is this it on the board?
Zaremba: I would support that and, actually, the point is not that we would deny adrive-
:~~~; thru, but that as part of the required notice to the neighbors it needs to include that that
` ~~°"'_''~' is a subject and if I understand correctly from staff, the notice did not include that. And,
therefore, I don't think we would approve that with this, but that doesn't mean we'd say
no to a separate application.
`~'~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, they did, in fact, ask for it with this
,,,
``z application. There was no detail provided at the time. The notices were sent out with --
.
~~
I don't have the exact language here, did it talk about a potential, I believe, was the
,F language, potential drive-thru use on the site. So, they did -- they did ask for it, but the
details -- it was a little later in the game and, to tell you the truth, I didn't, excuse me,
- spend a lot of time on it, just -- evaluating the drive-thru, because I didn't think that it
was fair to have a -- it could be built this way or that way. That's just my take on it. And
it being that close to residential, I thought that there should be a separate hearing to
solely discuss that. Now, there may be some people in the audience here tonight that
saw that notice, that got notice of that, and have issues with the Conditional Use Permit
`~~` for adrive-thru specifically, but they did ask for it in their application and we did notice
the neighbors, so --
,:" Zaremba: Thank you.
= Borup: Is this the design that you're looking at, then?
Mokwa: That's the concept, anyway, at this point, yes.
Borup: On those -- on those two lots?
Mokwa: Yeah. In all likelihood -- you know, and that brings up another point. On our
preliminary plat, which is our third application, we are specifically not calling out
easements common to lot lines, which is what we have seen on a lot of other
commercial subdivisions in the past. We are going to specifically request -- or plat the
"`~ easements where they need to be for the utilities for this purpose, you know, that this
particular developer-builder likes to have flexibility built in, so we have got small lots that
r-
~`` Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 8 of 84
"'F~ -- you know, two small lots could combine one building, so in this case in all likelihood,
' ~` just because of room constraints, you would -- or space constraints, you would have
'~;II one building that spread over Lot 7 and 8 with the drive-thru. So, this is just showing
~~'~`~ how we would modify our parking access aisles to accommodate that and it doesn't
affect the main drive-thru, there is still the main drive-thru and the emergency services
access through it.
Rohm: And I think that to kind of carry this though to conclusion, drive-thru applications
are very specific and if it's a concept at this point, which it may well, in fact, end up
being exactly what is installed, if we were to approve a conceptual drive-thru, it's almost
-- it would be the same as saying if you make changes that, too, would be approved and
I think that in -- to be safe, I think we should just remove that from this application and
- hear it separately. That would be my thought on that.
.~
Zaremba: With a specific design the way the final is going to be.
Rohm: Right. With the way it would be final and that way we could act on it as a
specific design criteria.
Mokwa: Mr. Chair, We can live with that. I mean it's not a huge issue for us.
x'
~.,>
;a
F~.,~~;:_ Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
,._,;{
°~'~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, he did bring up one other thing that makes me question
'~~°~ something and, again, for staff. Do we allow buildings to be built across lot lines?
Wouldn't they have to re-plat to do that?
~:<y~~~; Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we do allow buildings to be built across
f '" ~` lot lines as the applicant indicated, if there are no easements or other encumbrances
_~ ;r that are being built across. Ideally, they would do a reduction in platting or a record of
survey and remove the lot lines -- or you can't remove a lot line, but, basically, make the
': two lots one just with a simple record of survey. It's a pretty easy administerial process,
but you can build across platted lot lines.
;~' Zaremba: Thank you.
:>=
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. We do not have anybody signed up to speak to this
application, but that, certainly, does not preclude anybody from testifying. So, at this
point in time I'd like to open it up for public testimony. Anybody that would like to come
~r;p forward, please do so. Seeing none, discussion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any
`;°~ thoughts on this?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned I'm leaning towards approvals in
,`~~, accordance with staff comments. As far as the drive-thru, I definitely am of the same
~~ opinion, I do not want to see that go through tonight, because I'd like to see a little bit
'~ more information on that. So, therefore, that's the end of my comments.
~~:,:,
i~{
$jL'i~ ,'V ~.iggi
~,
~'~r L
~j.a, ti
:+tSi TiY
r ".:
~~
e ~" _
~31tI , 1h` ~.
.4. ~Y,
~7~r) .1 j. V ,
~ r~ ~-'
~~ i Y fit.. I..
fs~-n ~f
~ u.
_?gip y„~, ^~ ~ r
'sr ~
CE _Y ~ .. ~, ~l{ R _ 4
l 'V _
k
r ;. °~s
~i a„ , .~
Meridian Plannin & Zonin
9 9
`:- May 4, 2006
Page 9 of 84
,_:
Rohm: Good. Thank you. Any other comments before we move forward?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
~,~~ Borup: The only question I had is on the Ustick Road access. Question for staff. Mr.
~;~ Hood, what -- does it really make any difference what the city recommends as far as
how ACHD would act in the future? I mean if they deem it's necessary, they are going
;; to do it anyway, aren't they, whether we mention that in our staff report -- or in the
k = approval or not?
.::.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that is true. I mean ACHD has the same
charge we do of police powers to protect the safety of the citizens of the county.
~s;
fib,. specifically made a plat note in this one to give the heads up to buyers within this
`°'~' subdivision that, in fact, they can close that if they want to and it shouldn't be a huge
surprise. Now, ACRD is not just going to go out there and Willy-Hilly close their -- you
~~,, know, they aren't making any friends that way. But, again, it was more of a heads up for
` future lot owners in here that, in fact, if it is a problem it may be closed. But it does ring
; ~ true for any access that ACHD has, as long as they still have access to the public street
system. So, it could be removed and it would -- they could still enforce it later, yes.
~~~:~~
~
Borup: Well, that kind of makes sense.
<~~.:::~
Zaremba: Well, I kind of agree with having the extra warning there. I just -- this
articular location -- and we have talked about Ustick Road a lot. This particular
p
location, of all the places that ACHD may want to reconsider in the next 15 years,
maybe, I think staff is absolutely right, this is a spot that they would be concerned about
and in this case I support the idea of putting buyers on notice that this is maybe more
~, likely than other places. The other piece of it is to also enforce the reason for having
w~ the roadway connection to Santiago Court, so that if ACRD does make that choice,
there is an alternative. I kind of support leaving it the way the staff asked for it.
Borup: Makes sense,
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I would ask staff one other question, though. On Exhibit B, conditions of
approval 1.1.3, the bullet that's the fourth one down says construct a pedestrian
~. pathway. Should we change that to roadway or driveway or do you want both?
:` Hood: Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there is a condition in there somewhere
~>~ that talks about the roadway. That would just be the pathway. So, there should be a
{:
driveway --
l-`;;~1 Zaremba: 1.1.14 does say construct --
<~,~
r ;_.
rtasSE`i r
~ a
~:w {
y~,v v ~'~
3 5'~ r
K ~~
~:~€
},
f
i• 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 10 of 84
Hood: Yeah. So, that covers the driveway. The other one would just be the pedestrian
~`~~~ path adjacent to that driveway that's 1.1.4.
~~~ Zaremba: So, there should be both?
^~ Hood: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
:~ Rohm: Typically, we offer the applicant an opportunity to rebut public testimony, but
having none, and it's only comments from the Commission, if you would like to come up
and say anything final, you're welcome to or -- and from the audience he's saying he
doesn't need to. So, thank you very much.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
'~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'd make a motion to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and
CUP 06-011.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
~~ Borup: Second.
~'~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on RZ 06-001,
PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
l-''~ carries.
~`~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moe appears to be ready to make the motion, but I would,
in looking it over, ask to discuss one other change. This is in Exhibit B, site specific
requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. Paragraph 1.3.2 does say any future
drive-thru use on this site shall require a Conditional Use Permit. I would precede that
with -- since it's been discussed, I would precede with that the statement that says no
drive-thru is approved with this application and, then, make the sentence that is at 1.3.2,
the second sentence of that. No drive-thru is approved with this CUP application.
Rohm: Seems to be in order.
~`~ Boru Or ust eliminate future. You could ust cross out future.
;~ P~ 1 J
'~~"~~ ~ Moe: Yeah. I think that would be --
_- ~~µr Newton-Huckabay: There you go.
,,
;;a..
:~
a .,;. ° ~
x ~ ~,,,
~~g~'3 ^~?'~
#~~ Yz r~
iA;
~i
y
F?;,t
~
~'~
}
{ ~I
} (: M..
g
~ Yf
ggp` r # t'
g y,{
..
t {t•w~a ~~1 ~
~s„ ',
'
,, ~;~~ ,
'~ ~ ~ ,
,ax~Ry~~ T ~ ~
eT !~{t anti 'b-f'
u' ti, i ~
~SttA K~( ~ ~ i~"~3
l'
1p:
t .~~ s; -
. - ~ 3•
~j~~t -'".~.'.
c~ v
;~ y s
lu: r -~~R
x~3~. ~ ~Y:l
~~ = c~
~ . ,e ~#
w1
`s~''~i- a=~'''
_ .,,r,;
r~
~ ~ ~
l~~~ t r-
ryj~, a .''` `.
S +n a
-~~ x:.;~...
L
'~
s ,
°° - Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 11 of 84
Zaremba: Works for me. There is always a simpler way to do it.
Moe: Always. Mr. Chairman?
-$=;
T:
°'~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-001 and PP 06-014, and
CUP 06-011, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20th, 2006,
and May 4th, 2006. And the preliminary plat labeled sheet one of one, dated January of
.
2006, revised 3/1 of '06 and the site landscape plans labeled sheet one of one, dated
~
~~
~ January 2006, revised 3/1/06 with the following modifications: To conditions of
;,,
..
approval, which would be under site specific requirements, and for the Conditional Use
Permit, item 1.3.2 where it's stated that any future drive-thru, I would like to strike the
word future under that. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
.{
`;`r~~~
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council
a Vii; recommending approval of RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, to include all staff
comments with modifications as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried. I thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
_ Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low
Density Residential) for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village,
LLC -north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-016 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8
common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village
Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC -north side of Cherry Lane west of
.~ :.
~'~~` Black Cat Road:
.:n ,
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006,
..h~_ for AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, both related to Incline Village Subdivision and begin with
the staff report.
~I
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is the second item on
your agenda tonight that we didn't make it through on the 20th of April. There was no
'~;#~_ hearing before. It is a continued item, but I'll give you a brief description of the project.
It is an annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat request fora 20 acre subdivision
located on the north side of Cherry Lane just west of Black Cat Road. There are 64 lots
w`'1
~~.~._, ~
~~~~~
~ t
=
. ;
n
~fv f4
~ ~_, S ; ~.
y'
~ ~w'"~`~ r 3' s_
: sy
i~ ,t,~L '
~ ., a ~ .~
x ~i¢~I ~m
{
r '~ 1, ~•~'~i ~ ~.E x
~' ~~ , w~a
~'~ ~i,
~ ~ .
R' t 3 _
!`
Y~ x ,
~~ ' Mir r
i,.
3` ~s a~:
{'4 ~'FI
~~~~ ~~
y 4.~ i
'F t f~.
C
a
`~'~2~ ~ .SCI
..,
A:ti.Y
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 12 of 84
`~ in the subject subdivision proposed originally. The applicant has since modified the
plat, has removed three lots, so I'll get back to that in just a second. The surrounding
area is still largely rural. There are to the east of the project on Black Cat Road an LDS
church and aSeventh -Day Adventist that is under construction. I don't think they have
occupied it yet, but it's under construct. To the north is Turnberry Subdivision in the city.
And, then, everything around this property to the south and to the west is still in the
. _
county. Applicant has submitted a letter referencing the staff report and a couple of
~
;~~~ conditions that they would ask that be modified within that staff report. I have looked at
>~_ that letter and am in general agreement with the applicant's proposals. I guess I should
~~- uick and -- in the staff report there was arequest -- this is the modified
back real
jum
s;:~ q
p
site plan. Few of the changes -- there is an existing home here on this lot. They did
''t. have a flag lot behind that lot. Had a pretty good stand of trees within it. There is some
~~;~ visibility concerns from the police department. They have removed that lot and, then,
°``~~" two other lots within this block that were below the 8,000 square foot minimum. So, all
~,y of the lots within the subdivision now conform to the standards of the R-4 zone. Another
change to the plat. They did add a traffic circle here at this intersection. There is a stub
``` ~ street, so when this property develops in the future, that can be extended and there will
t ~;° be a traffic circle. This is their -- a large majority of their usable open space. They also
,;r
=r~~~.
have a sewer line that's running in this location. It's an open -- I think it's about 20 feet
$~
~,
wide or maybe 25 feet wide. This, then, is that infamous easement for access to these
_
''``~ three homes that are back here that was of such discussion when the Seventh-Day
r' . Adventist church came in for their annexation request. The idea with that, the parks
~~~ department would like to see multi-use pathway to get to the park that's about half a
~,= mile or so away further to the west through this site. There are some other site
constraints. Off-site here. And they were trying to get apathway -- maybe I'll go to the
vicinity map. So, there is that access I was talking about. Then, coming to the
~~.
° applicant's property, you can, once this subdivision gets constructed, a pedestrian or a
d th
;.; ere
bicyclist could use, then, the internal street system, go up through Turnberry an
-~- is a stub street here, too. Without getting too much stepping on the Public Works
} ~
; Department's toes too much, these parcels over here are largely constrained by the lack
r:
;
of sewer-ability at this time and they are relying on another main to be constructed.
.
~;= This is the last one, I believe, that's going to be able to sewer back without that main
J~'
line coming in. But, eventually, the city's park is over here somewhere. And t ey are
~''~ trying to get that pathway through there. There is a condition in the staff report that
~~ ~~`~ basically conditions the applicant to construct that multi-use pathway on property they
don't own in this section here. In the development agreement it's worded a little bit
`~`<~~ differently and it gives them an option to bring it up from Cherry, through the site, and,
'~~~ stub it over this way. That option still works in my mind, but I think there may be
then
<-~.
`,'.>: ,
other options in the future that would work better than having it be on one side of the
""'~
~ sidewalk through this development and, then, stub over. So, I think there still are some
r
~
_
other opportunities here that the Parks Department can get their pathway over to the
~5 park and -- the parks department can get it over to the park in the future. I'll let you
`~' make the call on that. The condition does need to be modified, I think at least, because
~~ it doesn't give them -- the one in the preliminary plat, just straight conditions that they
`~ need to construct the pathway off site over to Black Cat and we shouldn't condition that
'r`r' off-site improvement. If the applicant were to volunteer that in the development
s-:•
r
},r;
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning
'~ _'~ ' May 4, 2006
Page 13 of 84
agreement, we can sure accept that proposal, but I don't feel comfortable requiring them
to construct a pathway on something they have an access right, but they don't have a
right to grant the city easement across property they don't own. Finally, the other thing I
wanted to touch on -- in the staff report there was a requirement that -- or we gave the
°~~~ applicant a couple of options for getting their density back at that 3.0 dwelling units per
acre. This is shown as low density on the Comprehensive Plan. They are coming in at
•~ 3.2 dwelling units per acre. They have lost three, which puts them at 3.05. So, this lot -
}'~~ - it makes it a really nice parking lot. I'll leave that up to your discretion. The density is
fine. I like what they have done with the other lots in making all the other lots conform.
' I think the park still could function, just from my perspective, it sure makes it a nicer,
' more usable park, but it's at one acre right now, so I don't think it's a make or break deal
~~
~~ there, but those two conditions are -- I think it's 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. I apologize for not
~ circling those. And, then, also if you so choose to modify the requirement again. The
-~ condition in the provision in the development agreement gives them the option of
constructing the pathway in a bunch of different locations. That would be the -- the
fourth bullet point on page nine of the staff report, if you felt the inclination to modify that
one as well. It's kind of a wordy bullet point, but it's there and it, effectively, gives them
nos options for how they construct amulti-use pathway. I think I'm going to stop there. I'm
sorry to kind of leave that one there. But Iwill -- and I think maybe some discussion or
presentation by the applicant and we can come back and revisit that if you feel that
that's necessary. So
we are recommending approval of the subject Incline Subdivision
,
annexation and zoning, and I will stand for any questions you may have.
` ;~;~ Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant
-~~ like to come forward, please?
$~~~ Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Daren
;,~=F~ Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant
;',,' in this matter. Caleb's done a nice job going through the project. I think we have
worked real hard to make this fit in and to do what -- you know, what the city would like
to see in the area. So, I'm not going to belabor those -- those points and go back over
that. I would like to 'ust touch on this athwa issue reall uickl and ive ou our
J p Y Yq Y g Y
V'I ers ective on that. This came u ve late in the rocess in reviewin the
P P P rY p 9
Comprehensive Plan map for the area, the pathway was located well to the west of this
~~~`~ site. There is, actually, two pathways that intersect to the west of the site and so we --
~'' and we had two or three pre-application meetings with staff and the pathway never
w:,; came up, so we felt pretty comfortable that we were in compliance with the Comp Plan
and the zoning ordinance and went forward with the app. Well, it turns out that the
_ parks department is having some trouble -- could we see the aerial, please, Caleb.
Getting an alignment along their preferred alignment, which is the drain here, because
there is a viable commercial operation here in the form of a nursery. And so they don't
~~r~ think anytime soon they are going to be able to get that. The parks department
. ~,~,~ approached me about that and we sat down and talked about it and I think the
consensus between us and them was that the best thing to do -- could we see the plat
again? Thank you. Was to make this connection right here where we have a sewer line
coming through, so we have a lot there anyway and, then, the sewer line does extend
'~
~.,~;_~
~~ i~,~ s.: ":
r -.
I
,~ .~i ~ ~
t iY~ r t ' :rf, F
i ?Y,nx ~r _w,.
~; -
~ . ~
~~y.l t,) }. 3 A
~ ~ ~.
~ '~'~"~ . ,~j ~',
~_F
'r
7i. ~ ~
~r1 r
} y
y ~J4* ry
F ~F
S ~ ~ ~~.~
~ ~~~,
.~.i a
5nw7.. 3.~. 3N'1, r
.-
Meridian Plannin & Zonin ~ •
9 9
May 4, 2006
Page 14 of 84
over to Black Cat Road here. What I told the parks department at that time and they
seemed amenable with was that we would go ahead and build the pathway here, we'd
love to have the path come through the project, but that we had no rights or authority to
be able to grant an access over that easement next to the church. I told them if they
wanted to negotiate that we would fully support that and help them out however we
could. And once you're into the project here, it's an easy matter to just bop up the road
here and, then, you're on a public right of way in this project and over to the west and
that will make a nice connection for them and get them where they need to be. So,
think the parks department is reasonably happy with that, we are reasonably happy with
that, and that was really the biggest issue that we had. Caleb did mention the
'~'' conditions of approval that we had an issue with and I just want to touch on those very
quickly just for the record. Condition 1.1.2, if you just eliminate that third bullet point that
works for us. We did leave that -- the build-able lot next to the park. We think that's a
really nice lot and we really did want to keep that one. Condition 1.1.3 could just be
eliminated. We have made the changes to the plat now and we won't change it back,
-"y so that one could be eliminated. 1.1.10 is dealing with the pathway. What we'd just
simply ask that that be modified to require us to go ahead and build the ten foot
pathway across our property here to facilitate future connection to Black Cat should the
parks department be able to do that. So, that's really it. I think I'll just leave it at that
and if you all had any questions I would be happy to take those now.
>~~ Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this time?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a question probably of staff while Mr. Fluke is still here.
Thinking back to the discussion of the application for the Seventh-Day Adventist
;:`- Church, there was actually a requirement that they supply a stub street to the properties
that we are now talking about, wasn't there? Did that fall out somewhere?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that did get modified at the City Council
`''7 level. There was -- and Bob -- I don't know if Mr. Kell is here this evening or not, but he
may remember it better than me. I have seen some projects go across my desk since
then, but there was not a requirement for a public stub street. I think the church did --
they moved, basically, their building down, so if Mr. Kell, a future property owner here,
needed to purchase, that it could be made available to them to purchase, but there was
not a public stub street provided to this property from within that easement or even a
portion of that easement, so --
-::~ Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: While you're on that subject, is that easement strictly a sewer easement or that
could be a pathway -- I mean a pathway can be built on there without acquiring other
permissions? We have pathway over other sewer easements.
~;' Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, you can build a pathway over our sewer
easements and it's not a problem, as long as we have a few rules. No trees planted
within that 20 feet. Low lying shrubs are all right. We do not have a sewer easement
,^ I';
~~ ;~~
yp~;s~
t 4-, ~ -
a'~;+ r` k i' ~ ~ ~~ - -
~:
~,:
i~Y~~~fe ~ k
~Y:~~` Y ~- ..
J` ,s! a
~ ~ ~ ~.
~?~~ " rr~
t r~ <:,
x ~ ~.~
t~e;~ c t~
4. J M .1~
e ~~~ ~~§.
~,
M ~ ``
i. '=r> i ~~ ~-
pS= ~i
j~~~ ~~ 53
k4 ~
,i.~ r t ~
~~,i~-t~~ #.lo,~
r ~r tr~~
~ . ' ' i t......
r wx
~~ ~ ~ rte.
~l ~
$ ~~trt ~ t;`~rh
i ~
.: ~ '~~
.q! ~ rte:{., >
~ Ye~~,i6 C
~ ~S~
vy 4
yY~r r~
a, Y
f
~4~ ~ ~ / L ~~U1
'd ly lT.~~ rr F ~ 4r
1 {'
~1A~
/ 1. ~ ~ ~:'. ~. l
} l S S$~e
i` •
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 15 of 84
~r through there as of yet. The easement you're talking about was an ingress-egress
easement for benefit of the three five acre parcels, which isn't sufficient for sewer. It
doesn't have our standard wording or doesn't give us right to go in there and dig it up.
Prior to construction plan we were conditioned to have the applicant submit us with an
. _ easement signed by that property owner.
'; Borup: So, there will be -- is that -- Daren, there eventually will be a sewer easement
there?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, we did have an access easement to
provide access to three lots, but we didn't have the right to put a sewer line in there, so
that my client had to go back and negotiate that and by some additional easement
language, if you will, to be able to put the sewer easement in there. So, it's pretty well
exclusive to that, to the sewer line going in there. There is a condition of approval
requiring that the city have an easement on there and so that burden is on us to provide
that. We have negotiated it with the church we will do that, but it doesn't include
anything beyond sewer lines.
Borup: Okay. But it sounds like if there is a sewer easement, a pathway can be built
over it.
Fluke: Well, as far as Public Works is concerned that is true. They don't mind if you put
a pathway on there, but the land is still owned by the church and, again, that easement
:,x currently is exclusive to sewer and so somebody's going to have to negotiate with the
church to open that easement up to a pedestrian path, which is beyond the scope of
;;; what our easement is currently. And as I stated, you know, we are supportive of the
r pathway being on there, but somebody's got to convince the church that it's the right
~- thing to do and perhaps even pay them for the right to use that land. Our use is
;;
relatively innocuous to the church, because it's underground, you know, and you don't
have people, you know, moving through there at all. So, perhaps the church will be
~'°;- amenable to it. I don't know.
~`~' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fluke, this is kind of a side issue, but on the same
b`~'` subject. There was some discussion during the hearing on the Seventh-Day Adventist
Church that the actual easement that we are talking about actually is twice as wide as it
x'
~J > looks like and that the LDS church had built on what was originally half of the easement.
s .;.
f ; ~' Has anything in that been resolved or does that make any difference to what you're
doing?
_,,
°',';F Fluke: You know, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. I do recall some
~; " discussion to the effect. One of the landowners is here tonight and I'm sure he could
":- address that issue a little bit better than I could, so we will have him get up next and --
+~= Zaremba: Thank you.
'"~~ Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir.
,. gip:.
;.~z, r ~.
~~ 4'~~ t
~1
_.
zY~j Meridian Planning & Zoning
~'`' Ma 4, 2006
;;~: Y
-a ~' Page 16 of 84
r.
=r:':~ Fluke: Thank you.
Cole: Mr. Chairman?
~~ Rohm: Go ahead, Mike.
~,,:;.
Cole: If I may. Public Works has not had a chance to see the revised plat with the cul-
de-sac, the roundabout in the lower portion there. If so, we would have added a
condition not allowing any man holes or water valves in that -- laid underneath that
roundabout or if -- and if they are going to route water and/or sewer mains underneath
there, that they can't have any trees in that. So, I would like to get that condition added
~` onto this as well. It's not in the staff report, because the plat I was looking at didn't have
=* the roundabout on it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Cole: Thank you.
-t
Rohm: Okay. At this time if there is no more questions of staff or the applicant, I will
ask Leona Clower if she would like to come forward, please. If she would like to speak
that is.
Clower: I'm not Leona, but -- that's my wife.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Clower: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Don Clower. I live at
5103 West Cherry Lane, which his directly across from the proposed subdivision. Of
course, I can say I appreciate your job here. I once served on the Ada County planning
and zoning commission, so I can understand some of the arguments that are going on
tonight. I have a couple of considerations. One is on Black Cat Road with the exit from
the Incline Village. There is going to be about five driveways on a two lane very busy
Cherry Lane Road anymore within about 200 feet. Plus, if you move on down a little
further you have the nursery, which is a commercial place that operates about eight,
- nine months out of the year, which is very busy with traffic. It's right on the other side of
``u the little bridge and it goes over Ten Mile Creek. It seems like there is going to be a lot
of congestion and lot a turning. Right now it's very hard to get out of our driveway
anytime of the day, especially early in the morning and late in the evenings, you just
can't get across Cherry Lane. It's just wall-to-wall traffic. Some has got to do with
construction. Second is this pathway on -- this is the first I have heard of that one
proposal is to come through my property, which I'm not very happy with, because we
have a drain ditch with an easement by the irrigation company. I don't know how in the
world you're going to cut across the nursery and come out of there. Making a pathway
`"" seems like a lot of pie in the sky and totally way ahead of its time, because the so-called
park is a rodeo stand down about another half a mile and you have got to cross a lot of
r ~ ~
-~
¢ z~~ r
k.. '.6 ,r. e.. lr-
r~r ~'
~~. '* `
~ ,x
'~ t
~``'~'~3~ ~ ~ ,7
`Fta 1sn ~k ~:1 ~ ` Y -
K \~f~Y
?X - . 4' -~
r ~~ ~ Y s:
Alf a y ~t i'' ;. .. *F .
v, ~yf~
3~~ ~ ~'
f. {)
~w~ ~t b
..f. _
:f.'
}~ {._
!4 ~ 3 < ~.~
4 r. [ a ~. ~~y,u.
t } d
y ~~
~~~ w~ ~ ~ ~
~pi ~ °~'#r ~~'~
I~..rt{,~,~ LsM ~fjtr'~~
n -t~15.
p •' f . 3vi ~trq~
"t ~
_ ~j'r c ~ r +r, r -
7 ~~?~ i ~,. .1..
a
i lSr~ #~,ri a
~ r „r,~ -r ,::r'~'
~ ' t e * ~;
i
~ ~ }.,. ti ~. ' k
u ~s~ ~a .
Meridian Plannin & Zonin ~ •
r' 9 9
May 4, 2006
Page 17 of 84 ~
private property to get to this so-called park that's going to be constructed maybe some
~.
`-; day. So, I think that's our main concerns and one last one is my water. All those -- all ~`
that property across and me we are on one feed line for our irrigation. We flood irrigate.
And it comes across the property and so I assume that it will be buried. I don't know if
it's going to be buried. I guess that's really not my concern, but I would like to get my
irrigation water once a week. That's required to irrigate my five acres of pasture. So,
thank you very much for your time and if you have any questions I would try to answer
them.
~`¢ Rohm: Yes. Any questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Steven Cady.
Cady: My name is Steven Cady and the property actually wraps around my five acres,
s,~ so I'm kind of at the southeast corner of it you might say.
'~.:~ Rohm: Steven, could you give us your address, too, please.
:;~'~ Cady: 5120 West Cherry Lane.
a
Rohm: Thank you.
Cady: We had talked with JUB at the first meetings concerning a couple of our
concerns. One was the water, which they did answer for us, actually. The other was
the fencing. We had been opposed to wood. Mr. Kell had told us it was -- at one point
-w .: that it would probably be vinyl. We are now being told it was going to be wood again
'y ''ti'p and I don't know if you address those type of issues or if someone else addresses those
issues or not, but we are still opposed to wood. It's my understanding that he give it to
the lot owners and I just replaced over 4,000 feet of wood fence in one of my mobile
~~~ home parks that after, you know, awhile you have to paint it and people don't paint it
and it starts to fall apart and people don't fix it and I have got, you know, a thousand
feet, roughly, on my property that his fence will be up against and I just really am
opposed to a wooden fence for that reason. Maintenance reasons. The other thing is,
of course, we have lived in this rural area for 16 years now where we are at. We have a
":~' nice backyard and a swimming pool and a hot tub and a few other things and we had
requested or asked JUB if it would be possible to have the -- I believe it's nine -- eight or
nine lots that are adjacent to our property designated single level homes. He stated that
. that had been done in other subdivisions before and would talk to the owner about it.
Prior to the last meeting that was canceled I contacted him to see where that had gone
and he was surprised that Mr. Kell hadn't called me, so I called Mr. Kell, who was out of
the state at that time and, then, called me the day before the last meeting and really
`_'~ didn't answer the question, but we would really -- we are very very much opposed to
having eight two story homes with all their back windows looking into our backyard.
know, again, that's probably not your concern, but it is for us, because if you go through
all the new subdivisions, you know, the homes are right up against the fence and they
are just -- the upper level is just looking into your backyard.
Rohm: Can you point out on this map here where your residence is and the --
.,
-., ~ -
,~ e ;.
n, ~,,;
~~ , ~ _.
~'fnafE j
•' - :'
* ~ 4!,3
~c~: a ~
r
'E's n '~: a~ ~:.t b
~'.
~ iti
fix fi ~y..~ ~~+~
?a:~ ;..
~~i~'sl7 Lr ~. ~:7i.I-~-
n f 3 > >: ~~
t L
t.~
x ~'
~ ~~ ~ y~* ~`r~
i t ~ ~c~r~ j y ,.
1rZ~+`+ ta`i'
t
y-
r`Y:ri1... ~t ..z ,;. .
~:~,
~~,~
~*,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
„- Page 18 of 84
,_ ;;
Cady: So, basically, it wraps around my property here.
Rohm: Thank you.
~T'~'
`~~~" Borup: But your house is -- which one of those buildings is your house?
- Cady: Right there. That's a volleyball pit and that's the swimming pool. So, I guess the
only two concerns we have are, you know, if it is feasible and possible to have some
sort of wording that those eight lots be single level homes and, again, we really don't
like the thought of having wooden fences that someone else is, in my experience, not
going to take care of and when you look all the subdivisions that have been built after
;:'_~ four or five years the fences are in need of repair and we are told that he will be giving
those to the landowners and that the common area maintenance or association dues
. will not have anything to do with maintaining those fences, so --
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Cady: That would be our --
_ Rohm: Thank you. That is all that we have signed up to testify for this application, but
at this time if there is anybody else that would like to come forward and testify now is
the time. Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to come back forward, please.
f Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke again, 250 South
Beachwood in Boise with JUB. Let me just address issues raised by the neighbors.
First Mr. Glower's issues. Traffic on Cherry Lane is bad. We understand that. I don't
1- a know that there is anything associated with this application that's going to change that
~` or really significantly impact what the traffic is in the area. It's really beyond the scope
of this one application. As far as the pathway feasibility, you know, the parks
department came to us with this issue and we are supportive of them, we are supportive
of the path. If they can make it happen we will do what we can to facilitate that. It is
shown on the Comprehensive Plan and it is planned that that facility will be built through
time as the opportunity presents itself. So, we will do our part to make that happen. As
far as the irrigation water goes, we will be subject to all the usual rules and regulations.
~~ We will take delivery of the irrigation water where we do now and we will deliver that
where it leaves the property now. So, this application, if it affects Mr. Glower's irrigation
water, it ought to make it better, because that ditch will go into a pipe where ever it does
abut our property. As far as Mr. Cady's issues go, on the fencing it is the preference of
the applicant to go with the six foot picture frame cedar fence. It's really a matter of
~~ personal taste. They like that better than they like vinyl. However, in the spirit of
cooperation he would build vinyl fence if that is Mr. Cady's preference. As far as the two
story dwellings go -- Caleb, could we see the plat real quick, please? We don't want to
restrict eight lots to single story dwellings along here, but -- because we'd rather let the
market make those decisions about what product is built. We would, however, again, in
the spirit of compromise, offer up that on these three lots that probably impact him the
;:
>, ~~
F„ ~n
4i
,
~'.
j~[ ~ ~. ~ ~
1 ~{
~ `; r ~ ~ ~.
~ 1~
~~
~. ,.
~~ ~ ~,:_.
_~~ , ~ _~.
~s ~s `~ ,
~~ 4
Ni1~aYG ~r f,"~ ~~..
~~l F ;
r^ ~'
;,
.a
e~~~: ~ ?" - _-
Cd' 1- ~ ~ -
y ,I
i1`~"' ~ ia~~!
r~~ _Gtd,
ti~ Y
4riiJ3~t ~~?:~
rn:~ ~ '
$7 _~.•
i h
t'Y` sT~ r A ' 'tike
~ tl ~ a
Lx ~'""Y
a ~F p -~, .. (-.
! .h*
r ,`
~~
~~r~~ ~'~
Y
~~ ~~.
A a a~ i ~„ ~~ •~
:`x:
';£t
tF
i ~ ,ry
~Jr'~ ~ ~~ f „?STc
Yr~
~~ , F
p ~k £ ;f ~~
4 { ~ l ff Y~
4
c~sr,3. 5.F L~ ~ _
IF,4 .414.., .. .... J. Fi.i.;Y~, .. r
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 19 of 84
most looking back toward where he lives here, that we would restrict these two single
story structures provided that we could build a second story bonus room above the
garage with -- and we would stipulate to no rear-facing windows on that to address the
concern of the windows. Along the property line here you have got -- Mr. Cady has a
fairly large structure here that really does obscure any views into the site this way. It is
a two story structure on his property very close to the property line. These are far
enough back that any rear-facing second story windows will be facing that way and they
-- these are very deep lots. I think they are 150 feet deep there. So, those structures
are going to be well off of that rear lot line. So, we think that's an effective compromise.
We hope that that will mitigate his concerns. And with that I'd just take any questions
you might have.
Rohm: Thank you, Daren. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you.
Fluke: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have thoughts on this
application at this time?
v=,,,;
r~u ~;:
':x+~'s
Zaremba: I do. Yes. I think everything has been very well presented. I think the
applicant's last offer of restricting I believe it was three lots to single story with a bonus
room and no window facing south is a good compromise. His explanation of the other
spots is satisfactory. There is some discussion about the single lot on the roundabout
corner just north of where the open space would be. If you considered just this piece of
property, that's probably a little bit odd, but if you consider that that stub street probably
will continue on and carry the traffic from any future subdivision to the west, it would
also make sense that houses be lined up next to that. So, if you just look at this, I would
think that was weird to have one house stuck out there, but considering that there may
be future development along that road, I don't have a problem with it, because that row
of houses probably will continue and nobody would notice that it's just one. I believe the
applicant has expressed a preference for the pathway to come from Black Cat and go
up into Turnberry Subdivision, which is one of the options provided by staff and I,
actually, would support that as the best choice for future uses. So, that's my only
comment.
Rohm: Good. Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think I agree with that. The applicant has said that they would do the vinyl
fence. I personally don't think it is because of personal preference, I think it's a cost
issue, and there is -- I mean it's double. So, I think that's probably the real reason. But
he already said. The other is just my -- and I have been consistent on my opinion on
restricting two story homes and I just don't agree with it, except for maybe very few
situations. The applicant says he will. If they'd like to, you know, that's up to them, but
the three lots they are talking about is well over 300 feet from the residence and when
you're that far away I don't know where that's a factor. That's --
.; ,
i';~,+.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 20 of 84
Rohm: I tend to agree with what you're saying, but if the applicant has agreed to, then,
don't see any reason to not make it part of the approval process. But I -- in concept I
certainly agree with that.
Borup: I guess if the applicant would have said they didn't want to, I would have
supported that.
Rohm: I probably would have, too. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add on this one.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
j Moe: The only question (have -- I'm still a little bit confused on the pathway.
;~~~, understand that the applicant has no problem putting the pathway in over on the east
';~;~ side of their property, but as far as the sewer easement and whatnot, I assume that that
at this time will be done or are we looking to require them to work with the church to do
''t~~'`' something when they, in fact, don't own that property, so --
-
I~ Borup: But they are ettin a sewer easement a reement, so wh can't the words
g 9 9 Y
~~:;
I added sewer line and pathway. It's two words just added into an agreement.
~
' Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm?
,r
..~~,~,~
~~`~,; Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to get clarification from Commissioner Zaremba. Were
-~'~ you, when you spoke of the pathway, talking about extending it from Black Cat?
•`i '
Zaremba: From Black Cat. And, actually, my earlier question to Caleb about the
~,~~;
~
discussion with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church requiring a public road access back
`~"''~`~ there, since the City Council gave that up and, therefore, there was no requirement on
"L' the church, but they have moved their property alittle -- their building a little farther
south than they originally planned in order to allow an access at the top, it seems to me
that it's a good trade for them to be cooperative about this -- the needs of this applicant
_'.~~< and the needs of the city to have a pathway there. I'm not sure that we have any
.: hammer to throw at them, but we did give up the requirement for a full public road and
would think they would be willing to cooperate.
..:~: ,
Borup: We have got one Commissioner that's got a long memory.
Y~ Zaremba: It's sometimes faulty, but --
Newton-Huckabay: I just remember it was a fairly stormy discussion that day.
,.
:.,:.
~~
•~^C ~~,{
yil`-~ .
aQ" 1
..k.. u,,.k~ 7
~ ~? i
t ~j;, p '~,~:
L 'i 7f;~ ~?:~
S'F'r ~:t'~'x....~.. -.'_d!- J%
~~~ ~~~
~ ~ 5.w
~`
# ar r`Se r +.-i~3~
Ar f~;~t+~ ~Li.y_~
'~: -rv
r ''
1i a
;~~ 7,
~ ~~' ~ ~~~
i afl'.
L ~ ',1 .+.....
{,'.
~~tt.~/ZYh y ~
a "~a. ~.
,~ r~-r
4
s~'~, r
y F~
.s ,
,;; ~, , . .
{G,
~ ''
u-ea r ,~
Sri;:"~ ~'3:a.. ...
r i '::
}e~~~.
~~,f
`~~~~~~
s ~ ~.
., ~
~ -.~
_ Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 21 of 84
-' ~
Moe: So, then, am I to understand if, in fact, we are hoping that the church is going to
r-`c'I grant that, that this applicant would be required to do the paving within that sewer
'~ `''' easement through and out their property?
;>
~~~ Borup: That wasn't my understanding, but Ithink -- I think -- I don't know. Have they?
~,~~ Newton-Huckabay: No.
j
Borup: I didn't think so. They offered to do it on their property. On their one lot.
~`~~' Moe: That's all I heard them say. Not from Black Cat over.
' '~ '~ Zaremba: It's possibly misunderstood, but the Public Hearing is still open if Mr. Fluke
°~`"~
:,,: would care to correct me. I thought you were offering to pave all the way out to Black
.` ~'
~~ ;f Cat.
Borup: I didn't hear that.
Zaremba: If it could be worked out.
Fluke: No, we were not. We were offering to build it within the bounds of our property
o=~~ where we have control over it and we just simply don't want to get tied to a condition
°'~>
~:.- where we have zero control, because it could mess the -- you know, it could hold the
.:~.Y
--
whole project up. Given that the church apparently has some fairly strong objections to
_
' ' ~ public access through that area -- I wasn't at that hearing, so I don't know, but if it were
°~ '``r as simple as adding two words to the easement, I would do that for you, but I don't have
~:: that authority.
Zaremba: The church's issue was the amount of space that would be taken up by a full
-~~=
. _ ~~, width ublic road. Th
p ey thought that was too much space to lose without compensation.
Borup: Who is preparing that agreement?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, we will prepare the agreement with the church. However, it's well
beyond the scope of what they have agreed to to provide a pathway on top of the
easement, whereas we have only secured an agreement to put a pipe below ground.
~~ Boru Well, the are not bein asked to rovide the athwa ,the are 'ust bein asked
P~ Y 9 P P Y Y 1 9
{ to allow it.
Fluke: Correct. In my discussions with the parks department, I told them that if they
would lead the charge to obtain the easement through there, that we would support
them on that and facilitate that -- that process.
Borup: So, when you prepare that agreement can you add those two words?
:~
~' , ~~r
-,.~
A e s ~ ~, ` ~
~, ~.
S ~+t i I ~ +' ` , ,,
~ c ,~ ', s r
?'+ y
~ y~ ~ ~~
,~ _
f
r~~~~~ ~ ~~ ., ..
~ , r4ma p.n
~~ ~' ` t"?
y,,.
jLt 1~.. Y~li' .. _.
~(L j t ~ S.~ ~~ 4
{ -0 ~ ~~
~ y z
r
~ ~
~'~ ~ ~ ~
t.
r. y
4~~jj~~,, rTh~ y.
~,,z a:`.: , , ~.~ ,,~ `
t 1 ~, ~, y~~~
.} 1iv - .~4 .k~?, h
t.t,r:~ ~~ap=.
~ I~ ,
r t~-, ,
r~~~ ~~~
Y
x
`, + } r
~,s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 22 of 84
Fluke: Well, yeah, I could add the two words, but --
Borup: And see if it gets signed. It sounds like Mr. Cole has a question.
Zaremba: But I think the other point is I stand corrected that you're not offering to make
the path go across that portion.
Fluke: That was not the offer. That's correct. And like I said, we will do what we can
and I will make this agreement with you that if you do not require us to build something
on land that we don't own, that we will do everything we can to make that connection,
because, in all honesty, we would prefer to have a connection there, rather than having
a dead-end path. That is not an amenity to the project where a pathway connection is.
Rohm: I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Borup: Mr. Cole has a --
Rohm: I have a question of legal counsel here for just a moment. We had someone in
the audience that would like to speak it appears, but the applicant has already given
their rebuttal. Can we take additional testimony from the public at this time or --
Baird: Mr. Chair, it's in your discretion, but if you do allow -- basically reopen the Public
F; Hearing, you have to allow rebuttal again. So, it could extend your evening
i~ unnecessarily. However, if he's got information that might be helpful to the situation --
,~ it's totally in your discretion.
y_'~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I guess my only comment would be I would hope your
testimony would be to this specific issue. Please come forward.
.,-~:
'.~~=~~ Law: My name is Brent Law. My address is 4888 West Cherry Lane. I live right on the
~~ corner of Black Cat and Cherry Lane. I own the property right here on the corner. The
`'~~~~ problem -- what you guys are discussing right now, what concerns me -- I believe
~~ somebody is going to have to require the church to leave some kind of a pathway or
something in there. Right here, approximately, is the head-gates for all of our irrigation
water. If they try to cut that access off back into there, how is the rests of us going to
~'~~~~ use our water? I realize right now we can drive into the LDS church parking lot, which
currently exists right about in this area. The Seventh-Day Adventist church exists right
~ in this area and our head-gates are actually real close to where that easement is all
~~.~, going through there. So, some way or another something's got to be left open there, I
would assume, because the technical sense is if the LDS church didn't want us using
their parking lot to get in there to our head gates -- I mean we have the easement that is
~.~ }' currently there that everybody has been using for access back to that properly, that's
what I use to go get my irrigation water and Idon't -- you know, I can't see how because
;~ ;~I of where the head gates are for the irrigation and this -- the head gates are for all the
~~
- properties over in this area. Everybody that s already talked, everything that s already
R~ki gone on -- everything that's already gone on, all that -- our access has to be through a
~,
~;r ,
9~ a ~ ~~~w
~ J ~ I i ~ ~~ y ~ ~? ~_
..
.~ -
~ _~r~~
,,
`~' ~, y.
°Y .t Ur ~.
r,.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~-' u
.L
x'~ I _µs t ~. ~.
'.Fi I
L,
c S
L. f~
~;N ~ ~ iw `5! :ti
a a;
a
~~t1 ~ ~~Ca t ~ z~. ;
_ l~ t~,.4..,v a v
i -~ ~uti~~ ~r ~~,~
~ ~ `"'`
~; - ~
il' ~~ ~
~~ 1~ ~.,
~: ~.. r
s~ ~ ~r ~ ~ c~ ~ ~`
n s::. 4 ` ~
', j i ~ ,K; ~ r,
~ !~ ~ hr ~~
i'Mti c <y' , ~:
,y~
F.--,
,>
~.
~~ ~`11 aka izV~~
+~ ~: ~ `. x
. ~~ ~.' ~ ~
if A
f}- 6
`~ pus -r a+~•,+ z }w'1R'
'w'
t,,
d1~S> r 6 iii ais~ ~ ?ix
E i~
(( '' }~,.
't~~s„k
'~'. ;.yatN r
,a ~ s
,~
&~f~S
1~• {,.
~~~~ti ,nfi
~ + ~ x
~;
r.. ,.
~x
`I
~,... ~ I
'€
.::~!
,., ..
~~ }
. ;=
~~
~f,:i.:
%i ;;-"
Meridian Planning & Zoning • •
May 4, 2006
Page 23 of 84
pathway or we have got to be able to be told that, yes, we have access through the LDS
church, but the current access that is there now is what we use to get our irrigation. So,
it's all kind of a -- the whole thing is going to be kind of a picture. This pathway you're
talking about building or that maybe somebody's going to have to be required, I hope
somebody would realize the church that -- I don't believe the Seventh-Day Adventist
Church should be allowed to cut that off and be -- and them be able to sit back and say,
well, nobody is going to get use to this property when we have currently had that use
and we still need that access. And so for them to say it can't be used, I would think
there -- somebody should be able to step up to the plate and tell the church, well, I'm
sorry, but we have to leave a pathway in there, because the current access back into
there has to remain open for the property owners to be able to get our irrigation water.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Law: That was my concern.
Rohm: Yeah. And that's well taken. I don't believe that this application would preclude
you from gaining access to your irrigation --
Law: Well, the only thing I want to state is that the access in there, this pathway you're
talking about, I wouldn't think somebody has got to purchase property or somebody's
got to get a right of way to it or something, because we have a right to have access to it.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Law: And (personally -- I'd love to be able to have a pathway, instead of feeling like I
have got to cross somebody's private property and get in there.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I might suggest that the Commission redirect its discussion back to
the confines of the application. I think we are getting a little off course.
Rohm: And that's what -- kind of what I was saying.
Law: Okay.
Rohm: -- is your access to your head gates is not really part of this application and
that --
Law: But it affects the pathway.
Rohm: It may or may not, but their pathway doesn't address your access to your head
gates and I think that's -- our legal counsel -- what he's trying to say to you. But thanks
for your testimony. Appreciate that.
Law: Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you.
~ a
'~ ti\ ~ '~cx ~' E 1 ; c
~~5 ~
~ ~~ 1:
1~?° .4.
~ +1'yS~ e:a; ~t
Vii.
fF ~?c z ~
~} ~
~'ti~~ J~~' y 1' ;,~
~P'"~
[ 'F ) ~',~
4 ~ •.
s / ~i
~, ~f }/¢K aKf~2~
~ ~~.M ~ '.
n~wK
i;
~~'ti~ ~` ~-~j`
,f t , _~ µ
i ..;.., T
~iSi'-r~Y~ ~.~.'~;~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
"" ~`~ May 4, 2006
Page 24 of 84
~~'a
~~ 1 Baird: And, Mr. Chair, you might check with the applicant to make sure he has no
~-;~;~ rebuttal based on the --
' ~' Rohm: And no rebuttal from the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Any additional
- discussion before we close the Public Hearing?
~;~ Moe: Are we any farther on the issue of this pathway?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have one more question. Caleb mentioned the other potential
r`~' access was up through the main entrance of this development for a pathway or you
were -- did not think that was a feasible option?
;,-; Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the staff report conditions -- I talked
with Daren a little bit today about it -- the option in the development agreement in the
'~~ annexation and zoning is that they take -- tap into the other subdivision, you take your
five-foot wide concrete sidewalk and in lieu of that you construct aten-foot wide
`'~ pathway that would come up and, then, stub over to this roe because that's the
p P rtY~
direction the pathway is supposed to go. So, in the -- on page nine of the staff report,
rt~ that fourth bullet on that page, that's the last option given in there is that you -- you
construct the pathway ten feet wide, instead of a sidewalk up and over. Now, I have not
~' k~ talked to ACHD about that, but they have approved those in the past. I have not
`~ specifically talked to them about doing that in this application. So, I think it's feasible.
t;~f Whether it's desirable or not is the question I guess you're going to have to answer
what's the best option here, you know, if, really, any. I mean that's where it's up to you
~~~~ to make the decision. I don't have any great -- this has basically come out of the parks
;~ department, so they feel the need for a pathway here through this site somehow and
that was just an option given to them.
Newton-Huckabay: Which would -- actually, I have another comment on that. There
are no comments from the parks department on this that I -- were there? Or did I just
miss them or -- they are not stating their preference or am I --
Hood: As the applicant mentioned --
"~~ Newton-Huckabay: Oh, there it is.
ti~ Hood: -- there were comments. They were last minute comments. I think the meeting
,;~; was the day -- the day of the print deadline even or maybe the day before, but it was
' right at the 11th hour anyway. So, there wasn't really -- the applicant was good enough
to sit down with the parks department director and I believe Elroy Huff was there, as
~~ well as the city arborist, and they hashed through these things and I put it in the staff
~,„~~ report, you know, tried to get it over to the clerk to go to print. So, it was -- they may or
~I
'sky'.,
` ~ r ( ` ~~M~ 3a
~~yyh s ~~3'y L c i ~. ~ K` r
~~~~ r ;~~~~ ~
a ~ } fi'~T
~ t+~i k~-dam
_ t ;. ~ _ _
a s•
7 r. ~ ~.,t ~.d~.
.r ~
'~ a i=+ "~ 1~A.t '' ~ "a~"}~~
e n{~ .
~, '~ ~ ~ ;;
t'~i~ r ~;
' ` ~ - .,
~i, ",e Sal, Y~''
~74.S53.t's~; ~+
~rz ~`L.
F
Ott ~s
x ~
i.
i~~~R F}~f ~,
V, L k;~"
2
f~,r~.y °~~ #
- 2,` -~x. ,._.
~s ~ r '"d
r ~ ~ r ,
yy~jk ~ ~
,,~i
•
~'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
_. May 4, 2006
Page 25 of 84
may not be in their Exhibit B conditions under their name, but they were comments from
the parks department.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Okay. And, then, I have one another question.
~~~,I Can we o back to like the aerial? Where -- remind me where the athwa is comin
9 p Y 9
~'`.~~_ up from the south on the west side of Black Cat. I remember we had the -- I don't
remember the name of it. We have had some applications there to the south. We
had --
~''~'I Hood: All that property -- excuse me. All of that property there south of Cherry Lane,
~~" west of Black Cat is all in the county I believe still. I don't think --
~. ~ i
)`.'
.",:F~~.'~; Newton-Huckabay: Doesn't that --
Zaremba: I don't know if I'm correct, but I think the pathway at the moment goes around
Fuller Park and along here and probably ends at Black Cat.
~~:i
Hood: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yeah. Okay. All right.
Zaremba: So, this would be the current terminus of it. The desire is to have it go along
here.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
~. Zaremba: But that looks like that may be a long way off, I believe.
R` Hood: And that -- that section that you just pointed to -- Mr. Chair, excuse me, and
Commissioner Zaremba, is not the problem. I think they can probably get it -- although
there are several property owners that when they develop would all have to construct
~~= their portion of it to get it here. It's really on the north side of Cherry Lane as the
:~ applicant pointed out, getting it through this property here, he's not been very willing,
he's been approached by the parks department is my understanding and he's not very
willing to give up -- to do his portion and he has no reason to come to the city. He's got
'~ a business operation that he has no intention to be annexed and so it would be a hole,
~~ ~ basically, in the pathway system. So, that's why they are trying to go around and,
basically, abandon this section, come up Black Cat and over and go around him. So,
that's where we are at today and that's why it was -- is so late in the game with the
applicant, in his pre-app meetings with us, the Comprehensive Plan does show it off --
you know, off this property, it shows it over here and so we have never -- as staff I never
commented to them, hey, you need to construct your portion of the pathway. It's not on
the Comp Plan that way, so it was something that came up a little later, so --
'°~ Rohm: Thank you, Caleb.
~j '~ f E ~N- ~'"~tet
a5
~~ ~ ~`. t ~ 1.
~~ y
~.~ F 5y~
r ~L~ ~
'~;IMAY.~~ E P t!
"~~ ~ ~ y'
~~ t ~.i~Y •::
~ ~~ ~ '~
~l ~ ~~Qaxx d:?~`~..
~f~t,
1
~{ h ~:- ~ 'sr ~l
ty ~ y i ! 1~ s
s
~"
h '~~ L{ R
~~ ~,
2 ~~.
~~ ~K x
°~~
~ 4nn ff,HH,. y.. ~ ..
1F ~~jj ~~,~~~~7' ~'~~~ fY~r.
~ ~ '• ~~'
Y ;:~
~::y J' fi - - -
~ ~ ; ~~ ,
~.: t i.,~.'- 5
Y t ~.
is s ~ „k s.; x
~,¢
~,: r! ~~
i' v~ _
pyt.i F. t
~" - t~
~ 4.,'± f F 'v r ~,
Y~-~
1t S
,~~~ 4.<?
x:
a~~~a +~~~~ r
~»P ~.~:#
... y
,. n^N.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 26 of 84
Zaremba: I would comment that I believe the applicant has offered to work it out
however it can be worked out. Who is the next one to take the lead? Does the parks
department need to contact the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and perhaps the city
needs to buy a piece of that easement or whatever they need to do, is that -- the
applicant can't really do it.
Rohm: Yeah.
Zaremba: They can be happy about it, but they can't do it.
~`~~ Rohm: My take on this is this applicant's willing to make that pathway available to their
~, `<- east line of the property. That's where their responsibility ends. And if, in fact, the city
°"Y~ works with the church to carry that on out the balance of the way to Black Cat, so be it.
~~ But at least this applicant has come to the table and found a way to get it across their
.. ~~ property and I think that that's where the discussion really needs to end.
~~-{~
. ~~,~
-~-.~~ Borup: Except for they are obtaining the easement agreement.
' ~~
-- Zaremba: The sewer easement.
.~;~>
~~``. Borup: The sewer easement agreement and that's the time to add a pathway at the
_';:I time the originally agreement is being done.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, your statement of adding a couple words to
`'Vi'''i the easement to allow it to be a pathway easement seems like a good idea in principle.
In practice, it's more cumbersome than that. Our sewer easements -- we have standard
language that speaks of maintenance, who has to fix this if we go through their -- what
-~ uses they can use on it. It's a rather burdensome document that spells out the
maintenance, what they can and can't do, what we can't do. It's a nonexclusive
~Y *:.
easement, so they are more than welcome to put anymore easements over that
property at the same time. If Mr. Fluke obtains a sewer easement through there and,
then, Mr. Strong from the parks department goes through and gets a separate
easement with -- it would, essentially, be the same legal description and I believe what
JUB -- and I don't want to speak for them -- what they are talking about is doing the
legals for it, putting together the survey documents for them, the standard language that
the parks would want for their maintenance ownership relationship through that. It
<Y~ would be a separate document, a whole separate recorded document. It would be the
same piece of property, essentially, it would be the same legal description, same metes
* K' and bounds, but it would be a separate document, totally separate from the sewer
<:7.~-, easement.
'= Borup: It sounds like what you're saying it would be easier to just let the parks
department work that out and not be bothered with that anymore?
Cole: In kind of a long way, yes.
=' ~,~ 3
::, . -~;
m~.~a 2 ~'
~ ~~`E ~ .+
,~ ~ . :.
Ayr -'.;{.R '' r
?i j ?r. ~~ ~ • ,7r~
p ~~ ~ 3 7:~
~; t 1 Yt'; ; r`~
~,.`y~-
l~
c~+~, ~ .
f3
R
~~S'C Y
t Y:~ l ~
. .. .~~.
.fix:
{ (i
}~F E r.. ~. F.~
`Yy~{
~~~~~ ~ K
d.i~,. ~. ~ r'ti
r
~i j ~ ~i
ys ~~. ^'~
'r i
kH7i~R i~`-. ~~
A ,~. ,~ ~.t: , y~
t"t } ~~ ' o. tm
,a
S 2'C r ~ ~ . tN~
~ F Y ~ l ,
~,~
e~ ,~ a;
~ ~~ ' ~'z~
' s~..
~ i a
,::~:
~,
~,
<:~;,
;y
r.r,;
4
`I
;~,~'
;~.
~_.~.
;iitt
F C
.:'kQ`~~~.i
,. ,,
~'
~;,
,:~;;
,,,~..
~:
~~I
arc
~i::
.,~ c i
Meridian Planning & Zoning `~
May 4, 2006
Page 27 of 84
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Just in comments to this again. Basically, you know, within the
report where it talks about that the applicant will agree to construct the minimum ten-
foot wide multi-use path through this site and, basically, it's giving a couple different
options and here Iguess -- we have belabored this thing long enough. I would assume
that, in fact, the applicant is going to decide one way or the other how he's going to get
the pathway through, it's basically stated that way now and I don't understand why we
need to go any further with it.
Zaremba: I think my expression was to add the support for the Black Cat alignment.
That's my preference.
Rohm: Okay. Good. I think we have beat that one up pretty good.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-018
and PP 06-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Good.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I believe I could be prepared to make a motion, but I did need clarification on
one thing. On Exhibit B of the staff report, conditions of approval, paragraph 1.1.2, the
applicant had a comment about one of the bullet points --
Borup: Third.
Zaremba: -- and I missed which bullet point it was. Okay. So, my second question is --
is the staff acceptable to -- what, were we deleting that --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's up to you. Yeah, it's in the staff report.
They have removed three other lots, so their -- that's one aspect of it and you made
your stance on that pretty clear, so that's at your discretion. I can sleep tonight.
Zaremba: Oh, that's the one I was talking about.
F' ~~~.~ i +f~
i~ f n''%:i ..
t ,,,- , a
s;F } , t "~
4 .~ /`
'~ 'k ~~.
1 t z`
~ ~ ~ ' k;~' Y,.
Y~ ~t tXrc~y tet ~=~
s };t-err ..~;,~
e.} :,.
,'.13 L,.
1 ...- 1 ~~. :w
i«;~ ~1 t'om' .~
n S
~.~t ~ i K`. t <.
4 {~'~
4.,
~ ~ .~
u y N $ ~}F~1 ss ~
~n w ~~}}-+~~ r o~ ,1~
rlr~M11',`~4,. ~ ~ TGf
tai.
~![ ilk 1 Y ti~, -iJ
h.~
~.
~_.
~,s~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
_ May 4, 2006
Page 28 of 84
-:`_~ Hood: Yes. That's the lot that's adjacent to the park.
;'
°: Zaremba: We can delete that one.
~;_
Hood: I would ask, since I have the floor real quick, the 1.1.3 also talks about that Lot 3,
Block 1.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hood: You have a couple of options, I guess, and although the applicant said they
;~, aren't going to put those lots back, we either need to reference the revised plat date and
=^~<' ~ remove that condition or leave that condition and leave -- you know, and leave the old
plat date. So, it's up to you. The new plat date, the revised plat, is dated 4/19/06. So, if
_:.~= you remove condition 1.1.3, I would just ask that you change 1.1.1 and reference the
revised plat date of April 19th, 2006, so -- which is the plat we have been talking about
tonight, so --
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. In that case Mr. Chairman?
~.;
""~ ~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move -- let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
_ I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-018 and PP 06-
016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, with the
following modifications: On page nine, the fourth bullet on that page discusses options
for the pathway and I would offer that this Commission prefers the alignment that would
'% connect to Black Cat as shown on the applicant's plat. On Exhibit B, conditions of
°~ approval, paragraph 1.1.1 references the preliminary plat dated February 8th, 2006.
would say as revised dated April 19th, 2006. Under 1.1.2 I would, then, delete the third
bullet, which says incorporate Lot 3, Block 1, et cetera. Paragraph 1.1.3 I would leave
as is, but comment that the applicant has satisfied this condition.
~_
Hood: Mr. Chair. Maker of the motion. That Lot 3, Block 1, is still in that condition, so
`" they haven't -
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. If we reference the correct plat above, we can just
delete this one.
Hood: Correct.
`' Zaremba: Okay. So, we will delete 1.1.3. On page two of Exhibit B I would add a
paragraph 1.1.14, that the applicant has agreed to limit to one story, plus a bonus room
`_ ~ with no south facing windows, on three lots -- and I missed the lot numbers. Block 3 --
~.:._ Hood: Lots 5 through 7.
~~
~_
w
~eU y
~i
~s ~~~'~`
w'J
~i .~ ~~: ~
i'
~y ~~i
' 4 f ~ F4
~3~~ t ~.
~ ~~° ~ y'
~~ ~`
~ ~;1. ,r~Y,-
~~7~i~~?",.~y, ta~~.a~
dYY-:S ~
~„
R ~~
r~ x
7 ~ ~~ `vi
yy~ t
7'~;~ ~
'~(, s~
~; >~o ~4' ~i r~~. °~
`>: r x}
~ ~ F };
~~_
{ ~. Y~`1a y~F..
~~~ - t„
'~K
~-~ Y. y.?
~~...
Y. -
6 s-
K
~-
,
iy
hh
K' .. ...
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 29 of 84
Zaremba: Five, six, and seven on Block 3. And on, again, Exhibit B, under the public
works comments, I would add a paragraph 2.27 that says in the roundabout there shall
be no man holes and if the sewer runs under the roundabout there should be no trees.
End of motion.
Moe: 1.1.9 in regards to fencing. Did you want to --
Zaremba: Oh, yes.
Moe: -- make that vinyl?
Zaremba: 1.1.9 add the word vinyl to that. Yeah.
;_~ Moe: I will second that.
y;,:~ Zaremba: End of motion. There may be discussion.
~:: Rohm: It's been moved and seconded --
H;,;.
"~ Cole: Mr. Chairman? Sorry.
>;µ;
Rohm: Mr. Cole.
`~ Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, you might also add, if you would, please, no water
~
~ valves in the roundabout as well. Thank you.
~~~;
~'°~
~<>x~
Zaremba: To my knowledge --
.::
,. J
;;~
~a
~
Borup: If there is no water lines, how can there be valves?
,, ,:
.
" ,
Cole: Water valves.
Zaremba: You mean sprinkler water valves or sewer --
~ Cole: Main line water valves. They can route around the roundabout or the can run
Y
- ~ ' underneath it with no trees in it. However, generally, at intersections there is valves on
'j the T's, the crossings that go through there, and when they are in those roundabouts
they tend to become overgrown and un-findable and it makes it hard to shut them down
during emergency situations. We don't have it in ordinance yet, but at the plat we
require that no water valves are allowed in there, so they have to, actually, route the
water main around the roundabout.
~: Zaremba: Okay. So, I would add to paragraph 2.27, in addition to what I already said,
that within the round there shall be no water valves.
~.
~•~
~k t ,`'' ~ A, a,. ~~
,.
~~t i~
ai + +' f ~"
t, p •_h
4µ ~ A ~'i / .1}~.'
~j ..
A ~~1'f~~
~ n!~ p4 ~ ~
~~~.~{{_
~~ ~'
r
" 4,~,'.:
~ S j;
,~ i. ~~
3 ~ }
!. y
7 ~ fr_j t L. ~ 5
i ~'7~ttu
Y 'ii? ~ sy,.~n
F -"+ ~.. _ 't-E _
a ~ ~{i~
a ~~ ~;~
~:
,t
{,,y ~::
t a~ ,$
~a.
r r.~ ~ "~
~' ~. ~ ,
~ f'l:t° r
t 2
~i : M
7 l f,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 30 of 84
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, to include all staff comments as
amended by this motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you all for your contribution.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hood: Mr. Chair, point of clarification -- a couple for the maker of the motion. The
applicant did ask for bonus rooms on those single-story -- as long as there aren't any
windows on the south, is that --
-~-~~ Rohm: He put that in the motion.
~~~ Hood: That was in the motion?
Zaremba: I did include that. The bonus rooms with no south facing windows.
Hood: Okay. I'm sorry, I missed that. I'm sorry. And, then, I have one more
,.
~:
clarification. The fourth bullet on page nine, the intent, I think, is there. Its clear -- at
"'~' least I want to go on the record, make sure that we are all clear, just what is on the
.Y' applicant's property is what they are responsible for constructing as far as the pathway;
. ~s` correct?
.,~,:
.. ~~~
Zaremba: Yes.
Hood: Because the four different options in the bullet point say you need to construct it,
basically, from your point out to Black Cat Road. So, I will modify that fourth bullet point
_~`.. i and put the preferred language that it goes through Black Cat, but that this applicant is
I not required to construct it all the way to Black Cat.
~~' I
;~~,
~- Zaremba: That's agreed. Yes.
"~,~` Hood: Thank you.
~;,
:s ,
Rohm: At this time -- typically we wait until 9:00 o'clock, but this seems like a pretty
good place to take a break. We will reconvene at 8:45.
::~=y1 (Recess.)
,,;:R~~ Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation
-t ~ and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Southwick
7 Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
,r,
;S~ ,
~ ~~ 1 `'.,
n ~~
~^k k~~S ~' -~ ~t
^5~3~~~,5 `'tip' F,n-.JY
~'~,,..a. -.., ..
?ti
- :.VY...
r.', ~! ELe
°`. 1
~ r~~~ ~ '
~ s' ~t .
~ ~ ~'.~~
`: - ~,
r=~_ t~. ~n,v.,r
?:
c y
<,
Y-N ~ r
1R~- 1.c. r~ ^'. -
'' ~,y
~F
C ~;,'~'~' v~ k, ,
~ rYcE~ `q' 1 r ,j. .,
~' ~_ti..~ ti -%C - -
0
k t~F~3~~-
h~ 4 1
~ h . ~,'~ wY~,W34i'
` y e'
~'~'-~ r ~ ~~'~'
~+.y r"
r k ',Las
~:. , .
f,,
x; ..
~:~
~.
_:~ .:
Ih
:.~f' ~:_.:.~
z
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 31 of 84
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-018 Preliminary
Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene our regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with opening up the continued Public
Hearing from April 20th, 2006, of AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018, both items related to
Southwick Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Veatch: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Jenny Veatch. I will be giving the staff report for
Josh Wilson. This is something that was carried over from the previous meeting for the
Southwick Subdivision. It is going to be located at 1255 West Ustick Road, which is
east of Linder and just south of Ustick. The proposed plat is 10.59 acres of R-8 zone,
with 42 residential buildings and six common lots proposed. As far as -- if we could do
the aerial there, Caleb. To the north and the west we have rural areas. To the east we
have the Crossfield Subdivision, which is an R-8 zone. And to the south we have the
Meridian Park Subdivision, which is R-4. And on this property there is an existing home
and land and we will be showing that when we go back to the site plan. That's up here
as the existing home. And at this point in time they have a road that comes out. That
access will be abandoned and will be used as an internal roadway within the
subdivision. So, they will go through the subdivision and out. We do recommend
approval of this. I might mention to you that we have received ACHD's report and they
have approved it with conditions. ACRD is proposing street and/or access to the
development with a new roadway connection to Ustick Road. That would be the
Southwick Way. And some proposed extensions of Stanhope Street coming from the
Crossfield Subdivision in the east. Let's see here. And, then, they also have in the
northwest, the 13th Street from Meridian Parks Subdivision -- oh, excuse me. Another
stub to the east and Northwest 13th Street from Meridian Parks Subdivision to the
south. Down here. The applicant has also proposed to provide a stub street, Melwood
Street, to the undeveloped parcel to the west. I believe that is this one up here. So,
based on those conditions we would approve this. We are asking that the applicant
should add to the plat and be prepared to discuss today that the orientation of the
homes which are located on the common drive, we'd like to discuss orientation of those
on the plat. It's not clear from the current site plan what the orientation of the homes is
and the staff would recommend that they orient to each other to form more of a
community feeling and also to -- basically, for fire and emergency -- boy, I'm at a lost for
words. Excuse me. How am I doing for the first time? Just for emergency situations,
that that would be better for fire and police. Let's see here. What else do I have?
think pretty much everything else is pretty cut and dry. Caleb, did you want to add
anything? Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
~~
~~, r
~.
~
~~, ~ ..y
~~~
'. ~ ~ .F~ ~
,~, x ~ ~,
y ~
~~'
.. ~ ~, - \ F: i •' .i F ~ a k. ~ t7 ~ a f ~ S w .~ *.1-w,~ik~'~"F v -4 - - - _.
~ ``
`t
- }! -. _ ~~g, _
:'~SrL'{b~` ~.~+ tit `7 .,A~ ~' $~: '~"7`~ ~:~' "' ~ ;1`~ ~} ~ •.r ~ 1 :1'4. ~ ~'~"iE' 4 ...
7wiy.~ ue ~ ~ '~ _.,1~ s~ !~." k +~4 f~ :. , _{~ ' ~r r ,r ~r~, iv-.t', -
~ } rc' F ,~:t _ `:~ "`~'L~i`skrs}"'~~y~jt"S ~~~~ t~ ~`"Yz~'iJi,^i,~`~~f~~ ~; ~ ~ `~ - - h ..
_ ~?~'Z 6 ~~r r s2~i~~%~_~~`~~ ""~d~ ~ ~t `'~~"~~~ :~SCr~ ~* f<rt`~~' ~r ~ i .. t'; ~ "; .
t ~
C~, ~ - N~ '~~0 ...y~ ~sAS ~-; ~ i y: 7;l'~ t;,~K x '~~~4Y~S~i~f~~ -
' x
` ~ ~ +._ r
` ~ ht
~ - : ~ ~ ~ 1
~, .- ~~S~tt~'~ i f }„Wet' +} ~ ~,,.r ~i~,y~ ;f r ~ r.~~ :~..~.~~ ~, ~~i~'i>E'~j;`., r _
7 .~~ Ylt ~>~G ~~ 4S ~ ~, [[tk it ~t y y ~- -
~~' :: ~ ~ . ~ - ,. _ . k ~ ~,a,, ~ + .~ r h` _ 45 ~.~ ~'~YT'~ wF~,, c 1~5 d~~~Pk ,~?~ ~ -~;} 1~~~ ~yt i~y ~! ^~1 7.!'~~ i a~ .f +-'e .v : -
,v'r''.
r
:~ s. k, j
i n ru 7 ~ ~ ~
v ~T~ n„ ~ l ~ f ~ ~~ ? _+t~ tit
~ e ~' ~' y~ _f ~ti $ ra*~ e r r , ~~ yr w ~ i r,~~K ~ a
c - ~ v 'art ~. `} ~.,.a r .. ' ,~' ~ ; Y~ ~' ~ ~ g ~ '~+ °5..
c ~ a u
rz }t - 3 ~',~,~z w' t el ~ .t'µ s~s?.`-~x'~.;tt~ ~ ~vJ`'1~. ~ , "~ ~''S~r~~ F j ~'r~c .~I;.f~ 1~ ;:~ns~ y'~+ -:y tta,,.e
~ e ,. ,
. . .
~ ~ ~i ~ s ~~ ~ ~'13a t -ti=c'` ~. ~ ~ ._n+ £ ~
r k-^..,. ik `ilr' z ,.;*.k. ~ .fir S ~1 r ..
.
.. .. _.
~:
.~°,
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
May 4, 2006
Page 32 of 84
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just one. Has the applicant seen the ACHD report?
Veatch: Yes.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Good. Thank you very much.
Moe: And you did just fine.
:a,~ t _
R'
t
'i.
~ ~~ °.'a
...
;';
,``i
' <.'
t:;
..`~,
. ,
;<
-~
s
is
;:
Veatch: Thank you.
Rohm: Yes, you did. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel. 839 East
Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. Here tonight representing Gem Star Development.
Good job, staff. She did well for her first time. Just to add to what staff has stated, we
have a ten and a half acre site with a density proposed on this project of 3.92 dwelling
units per acre. The average lot size comes out to be 6,698 square feet. We are in
agreement with both your staff and ACHD's recommendation to remove the existing
access for the house, the existing house, onto Ustick Road. Take that internally. As
you can tell, we did take into consideration the existing stub streets to the west -- or to
the east and to the south and at the request from your staff, we did provide two stubs to
the western property to provide a better chance for them to redevelop their parcel in the
future. And that was at the request of your staff. We are fine with all the conditions,
with the exception of the one that staff mentioned regarding the orientation and we are
not so much against it, we would just like the flexibility of the location or the orientation
of those eight buildings, just for marketability with future builders. So, with that,
everything else we are acceptable to I will stand for any questions you have. Thank
you.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Any questions of this applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~-
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, do you happen to have any drawings of what this would
look like when it was built out, these driveways like this?
Nickel: What, the -- no, I do not.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm having a very difficult time envisioning how this would look --
would look, quite honestly, and so I just was kind of looking at this --
y ~ k'
i _
'~,~ ~~ Mrs
w <1~ nE ~~ :,~
{~,~.irK ~ , e~
A }
~ .Y[
~ ~ Y .S4E~~ ~ h ~-
w ~
.~,. ~ ~~
~ ~}
~„ s~
~~' ~;~ i c r4~~ '~,K
~'
~,~.1~y 5 I _ `~
} f +`t ~
h 16~ x~za
.FF } r s, e
~ r~ +~ti '
s~+Y° z
x fi ~
'_° _
~ ~'- d
~~y,"„~~]r~
Y'-~ ~x ~ YAC;, 4e T
~~° '~ ' ~'
~^
i {'
~~~~ ~'
~ . ~, '~:~
~ ,~ ` y _
N 4 ~ 4 r! ';r ~'~
~~Y~ N. ik'~eK ~f .`.~~~~ _ '.
i .t
}
t~
~ L. 1`~u~u, r
~~9i~
y 9 M.. .;. ~ ' .
L rtes ~ ~'•
~ rv~ s
t y t t
~. ~a ~~~.
„w~_ ,
.~ - ~ 1r , ~,~r<~
S~gafst~~ ~'~'
y
.~
Meridian Plannin & Zoning
9
May 4, 2006
Page 33 of 84
Nickel: And -- yeah, I wish I did have some, because we have done -- I have seen other
developments -- a couple on South Locust Grove Road, Rose -- Rosewood Subdivision,
I think, has the flag lots and I believe those are being constructed right now. I don't
have anything to show you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
^~i
Nickel: Okay. But I do know that you're seeing a lot more of these flag lots in new
developments.
l'
``;y
Newton-Huckabay: So, is like an asphalt driveway between --
Nickel: Right.
;~ Newton-Huckabay: -- down the middle and, then, you --
Nickel: Right. And it accesses back to here. Staff is requiring us to provide a
turnaround -- concrete stub turnaround internally, so you do not have to back up out
onto the public roadway. And I think what staff is stating, it's not a bad idea to create
that courtyard and it's probably how these will develop. We just do not want to be
locked into that in case a builder doesn't want to come in and do something a little bit
differently, so I'll leave --
Rohm: The back lots, though, would face to the --
t: Nickel: The back lots -- yes.
Rohm: They have to face -- correct?
. {;~~
,. y
'. „
Nickel: That's correct.
~~
~c
Rohm: And, then, it's just the north and south of the common drive that you want to
~; have your --
Nickel: You have the -- I'm sorry, sir. They would have the option of facing either east
or facing north or south.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
~r
~~-' Rohm: Would Scott Noriyuki like to come forward, please? From the audience he says
he has no comment, so -- and the only other person signed up for this was Shawn and
he's made his presentation. So, at this time is there anybody from the audience that
f h~MT ~,~m. A~ .C+~
~,
y. t
~.~~. ~
y ,. ) 1'
{ ~ aaxtte. 11
je\ ky'd'.t 4 A~ SY'
f
` .~~!
' { S
}•~' ,~
e t t5; 1~ ~ -
a~ r'~:*r'y ~
•,
s' a ~=i
~.f Y~4S ~!h .a.:
',.t,,
t
' ~=~~^'
j.
1 } f7;yt ~ ~~ 4 ~yE+t
~~ rA °~. ,;~-:
~ '; `
~ ~~ ''~
tom` ~, F
t t y~p~ ~. f
~F .~. 7~ ,}4~L 7~.
: '~„:ti ~.
~~ ~ - ~~ h
,~~ ~ ,~ i I
F~, ~~er ~~ ~~, '~ ~~ '
~ 1
KY_., N " i ~ ~ _
1 ~ ~~ M
R. ~' !+1fn....
~~3
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 34 of 84
~,
F'~; would like to speak to this application? Seeing none -- thank you. Discussion?
`` Commissioner Moe, do you have any comments on this application?
~, ;"
°" Moe: No, I do not. I think it's fairly cut and dried. I do know staff would like to see the
~
`'~~
orientation of those homes facing each other in the common, but I do understand the
_ applicant's point in regards to his comments. So, I have no other further comments.
:.::~
.
;: ~_
`'L Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Can you pass on for the moment, please?
~3'~{
Y ," Rohm: Absolutely. Commissioner Borup.
s.,Jt .: ~~..
r.,:
Borup: No, I don't think -- I mean it's a difficult site to layout, it looks like. Not too
excited about those flag lots, but, you know, that's what they have got to work with.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
fi
Zaremba: My first comment is that -- similar to what Commissioner Borup said, they
appear to have done the best the can with a difficult lot. Lon and narrow. I uess the
Y 9 9
only question that comes to mind is regardless of how the houses would be oriented,
~
f
~~ are we thinking that on those common driveways all four lots would take access from
the common driveway, so that there would be no access to the main road regardless of
which way they are oriented? Is that correct? I see heads nodding.
Veatch: It would be our intent that the ara es should front that common drive.
,:~ 9 9
` =`~ Zaremba: For all four properties?
~~'~~ Veatch: Yes.
Borup: Isn't that in the ordinance?
Zaremba: It may very well be. I think it works.
~Y
u.l
Veatch: Commissioner Zaremba, I guess Mr. Cole is saying that there is an ordinance
that supports that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any further discussion? I think that the application --
" you know, it meets staffs recommendations for approval and we don't have any
<'1
~, opposition from the public, so I can't see any reason to be not moved forward.
Newton-Huckabay: There is no houses around.
r
~~ i }
~ ~ f~~
i r °'E
" rte
s r aq i~*'fi
1 ~ r
~~i. +r ~,~ _ ~
r ;
w
k„
S5. t~ Ci ~:~.
~Y Y:.~2Yl~ 4 ~ -t~ l
{ f
{y ^^yy fn 'S
if /•
t
C y4 ~ .~~;^I;
~ y
-+~ re~k~ Y{~?
f ~ ,. S. ti ~ ~5~.
f ~~ ~ f
`~{"E54 btit ~~k~fk~ y ^',`
~y.~g.+ .:-Rey J. # `~
?Y11~ '1 h.~.d'6v`~' 7 ~4 3'~. ,
i i
~~*>{.+.~.~y
r y.iA 4 ~ 'FrLf
7 t "~ "F
~r A
L'.
3~` Lei ~f
~''"~~1{' ~,L fl~v
rY
b
y iN t'f
~ ID~i~~1 1n~..k
~~~ ti ~ ,?
,~i, , ~.
~r
r
Meridian Planning & Zoning
'- ` May 4, 2006
Page 35 of 84
',~ Rohm: Pardon?
Newton-Huckabay: I said there is no houses around.
Rohm: Well, that might be part of the reason.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. Chair, can we look at the aerial again?
Rohm: There it is.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no comments. I don't think I like the layout of it, but, as I said
before, can't really visualize how that would all look. I do remember going and looking
at something similar in a subdivision at Bristol Heights or something over off of Chinden.
Didn't really care for the way that turned out either. So, I have no comments to add.
But I certainly would have no idea how to make it different, so --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018.
,_ , Zaremba: Second.
~~~~~~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-019 and
'~'~ PP 06-018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
o~
. ~syY MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
.;s-' 1
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
';
~.~
-y''j Moe: Before I make a motion, can I get a date on the ACRD report, please?
~,.::
~.~;;~ Veatch: That would be April 18th, Commissioner oe.
~' Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
°' '' testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-019
~;;
? {~;:;~~ and PP 06-018, as presented to the staff report for the hearing date of April 22, 2006,
;~:`~:j and continued to May 4th, 2006, to include the ACHD report dated April 18th, 2006.
'~I End of motion.
~.
~-
::;°
.?,-
~:
~,aa
Zaremba: Second.
~=
fi r-f ~~~
r
. ?~-
`:'
~ ' ~
~~~ x~, u~
~ ~~p~~ ,
~
4 ~ a~~
_
` ~
t C .~Y.iti-'1 {-xi Yh~~ T ~
_
t ..., ,2"
~~i
~.,' ~,w+
~ -~` •~ y
J ~ S
r i F r ,'*
~' ~`~ `/ t 3 ywyt..
cc~~ 7 '~ ~~~~ ~'
~F ~ ~~~ ~ ,~rY~ t "~
3 h
~Y .
try i° ~
a ~~ ~a ~~.
w.~ r~ M'~o,,u ~ ~%
~~ % a~ ~"~
~~,
i ,,r
f~r~'i r .~.,
F:,,
a e
Herr
~ ~ ~° rfy~ ~~~
t ~° .~ ,
:.:, r ;
b_ v~
~l~~~#'~~ .~'
~ ~ ~_
t ~.
r i Y'~'X 'L'am '~i.
~.,
4vY die .,
i ~\~
Si ~J.r ~ ~ ~ f~ .
~ ~ T 3n.
~~.
ri d~ ui rs` -
h ~" ° ~
~'eK„r ,~, , =o ~
r s 1's
;~`';
°~~r Meridian Planning & Zoning
rs>;
~~ May 4, 2006
Page 36 of 84
„a,c
~K' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
`.>f
~Kj,= approval of AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018, both related to Southwick Subdivision, to include
staff comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
~,~
~.;w> Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: Let it be noted that there was one descending vote and the rest were in the
affirmative.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-017 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 11.79 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells
~:~'~~ Street Subdivision by C26 Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells
Street:
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-017 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 84 building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79
acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C26
'-' Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street:
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-012 Request
~a~1 for a Conditional Use Permit for 18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed
R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC -
675 and 715 Wells Street:
'
` ~ Rohm: Okay. Moving on. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearin
°~ 9
"'~`' i from April 20th, 2006, for project AZ 06-017, PP 06-017, and CUP 06-012. All three of
3=E~ these items related to Wells Street Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
~- ,
"~`"~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is the final item on
your agenda for this evening that we didn't get to on the 20th of April. I, too, am pinch
f
~~
r
hitting for Josh this evening. This is the Wells Street Subdivision. As you may recall --
it's been awhile now, but there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this property ~'
-- I believe it was last fall that you made arecommendation -- it may have even been
earlier than that -- to the City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan future land
- use map designation of this site from office to the -- to allow residential uses in this
` area. The subject application is 11.79 acres and includes 84 residential lots and 14
`0.x
common lots in the R-15 zone. I'll go to the aerial here. The property is zoned in the
county today. It is just due east of Woodbridge Subdivision. The remainder parcels
around this site to the north, south, and back to the west -- or, excuse me, east, are all
in the county today. There are a lot of these lots that are -- maybe I'll jump back to the
,`
zoning map. As you can see, the colored ones are in the city, so I guess there is an L-
Ozoned one there. They have not started to develop that site. That's why I guess I
forgot about that one. But largely county around to the north and south anyways.
Single family homes. Here is a copy of the plat. Just to touch on a couple of things in
~<
5 ~.i~t~,,i ~
,,; t
.;:;-
.~
i
~
a ~'~ -F„
~
r
~r b
~~y
' r~
~ ~~
~ ~
"
w ~~
~ ,
~;.t. ~
~~
Fr, ey}q>
~ ry ~
~' ~~
~
~
~~
~'
r t ...
b 3
=
h
.
~
a<~.
~~
~
~,.
:~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 37 of 84
the staff report. We do have ACHD's comments as well for this one since the last
hearing. That was something that -- we were recommending that it be continued,
because we didn't have ACHD's comments. I did have a chance to go through that staff
report. It doesn't appear to have anything significant as far as conditions of approval
from ACRD. I understand that at the Public Hearing there was some concern about
traffic in this neighborhood and if you have ever been in this area, the traffic does move
at a pretty pretty clip and some people may use it to even cut through from Locust
Grove to Eagle Road. I have been guilty of that a time or two myself. But in that staff
report there are no significant changes to the plat. As far as the roadway system goes,
we are recommending down in the southern part of the plat -- the landscape plan, I
believe, shows some access for the two larger lots that are being platted. In the staff
report there is a requirement that they submit, actually, a private street application,
which can be approved at the staff level, for the access for the multi-family lots that will
be condoed. It's my understanding that the intent is to condo those lots, so you can see
there are -- I don't want to call them lot lines, but there are condo lines on there for
future condominium of the -- what will be the triplex, then, it gets condoed into three
individual ownership units of those buildings. So, that is in the staff report that they
submit that private street application and also apply for a Conditional Use Permit for the
multi-family, since that is a requirement of the R-15 zone for multi-family dwellings. Just
a final FYI, I guess, on the Comp Plan amendment. This has been scheduled for the
City Council. It's on the City Council's agenda for June 6th. So, just so you know, they
are prepared to take action on this. They are waiting to have this application catch up to
it. The rest of the staff report, I believe, is pretty self-explanatory and I didn't see
anything that Josh is pointing out here that seems to be significantly different than what
the applicant is proposing. So, with that I will stand for any questions that you may
have.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant
like to come forward, please?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon.
735 South Crosstimber. Scott's handing out some elevations for you to look at. Also a
rendered site plan. He'll go ahead and wrap that up really quick and, then, I have got a
shocking statement to make. I have read the staff report. It may sound funny to you.
find no fault with it. I agree with everything in the staff report. It has a recommendation
for approval. There is findings in there for approval. There is conditions of approval
that we are in complete agreement with and I can't find any fault with the analysis that
Josh did. Unfortunately, Josh isn't here to hear that shocking statement, but I have
already told him. I told him last week. We have no argument with what he's prepared.
So, with that I guess the shocking information over, we agree with the staff
recommendations for approval. That being said, I still have a few things I want to just
quickly gloss over. In the last six months, seven months since you heard this last, there
was a caveat from you saying prior to this going to City Council, as Craig mentioned,
going in front of City Council next month -- prior to that happening you made a
recommendation that we come back to you with an application showing you what we
were doing with our mixed use project. Well, this is what we came to you with
. .
_, _ - y~2}}
~~ ~:4~~ t" 6 ,- ~1 ~7 r r,?rd~ ~-~ '*~u ~" Y,f,~`Ft'~~ i, a 1 . f~'~ t~ .'~~ ".~ _
y ~' :'S' ~ Iy~ t a~^rR'~d~r ~ti ~~ ~~~'~~`9d~b~R~--~ i":c ~ `: 'c.
] N r ~n
r_5y - ~ ~1 1 „„L rtze Y 4
Ye ~~t1:'t;7'''t1~~¢(~'~J ~r~4`f '!~ s ~~ fs.;-"w. ~:art P~ » wrif'~ 'rt..-,.,~xF t~ , ..
r J
y 4 ~
_ - ~tYR~ f err ti f t{t. ;`~~,'t ~[~~
4~''.l - rw~F,i,t f-F -..' ~~ d~~}e~ E~' ~;f~C . { ~ ~ .7 ; ~~ c~ ~ ~: ~:. ~ ry f, ~}~^t`.~k'P`~~a~r _ ..
. ~ 9~,'~"Y r C t~y 7 .~ ~ _ ~, t t~
t ~: _ It ~ - 1. 3 ,C~. l A ''2~ d~ .Sr :4hY iDy ~£ 1
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ` n ~ 7`d'};,rrf~ ~ ~ ~' s {x ~ x ~; ~!'y'~'r y n . ' a ~ '~ 4 '1`~'1~.." 1 t:
ffr~}!..1 .' * F #~fr1~r~~'''t t~~~"'fe ~'-1r~t ~~ ~~~~'7~~ ~ ,~ h ~.. :-r!,
nJ _ _ ~~.F ,.~ ~4t .~ Y ~5 ,y a'~a fr k,
a n t u ,~ t~
:K : e Y _ ~ 9 µ' ti~. :4v, ~ '~ ~ ~ k ~? i. ~ k? > ~-itE ~ {~ ...
~y,y a~y ~ y +t, r
h~i*`i.1 h- :~d, ~/F ~~~o/. ~.~;~~~r~R'•~![ , !~~}~[ih'~i~ ~l l~(~,'~~~.I.V~fi~~H .~_'~.l ~ } ~Y~ ~ ~ -_ .
`_~ y. )Cr din j.o-y
~z
r a, ~ r 'r, :. T,.
'°'t ° ~ ~ a ' 7 ~ * s
v
~- hN 4.~ n -. c ~'
,p~ -r i !S' 3 4'ti''7 ~ S~ ~ f ,~', It ~X~~~r~c
~~ x a 4 t 1~
~ v ~ u
a'~(~Sla7F .. ~ ~ ~1~~~r ~~~ n`~~) 5t~~ V,~, e~~ t5~ ~~3'^~~~} r,. ~.
`1
.;
°,~;
,: ~:. .
~~
`~,:
yu
k`ii f ~
~~~L
~J
~,
,~s~
r
~F
~
~ Y 4
r
~,
Y t a
xi.
a,r
~~
~~ z
~
.~ r.
1
1
~
~~..
,r:' _ f
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 38 of 84
previously. That's perfect. Wells Street. Magic View. Woodbridge. Just for orientation
purposes. This is what we came to you with at the Comprehensive Plan hearing. A lot
of changes have happened since then. We met with you, you guys gave us your input
at the P&Z hearing. We had subsequent meetings with the neighbors. We have had
meetings with the sub groups in the neighborhood. And we have had individual
meetings with people in the neighborhood. If some of you don't know, I, actually, live in
Woodbridge, so I see a lot of my neighbors here tonight to testify as well. So, it's going
to be fun. Some of the changes that we made with this project happen to be on Wells --
on Magic View Drive, the entrance into Woodbridge. Originally, as you can see, we
intended on putting an access road out onto Magic View Drive. We have since taken
the access off of Magic View Drive. There is no longer a vehicle access to Magic View.
We have eliminated that and replaced that with the pedestrian pathway. We have some
concerns about traffic at that point, saying this would encourage cut-through traffic, so
we eliminated the access point there. We have put in a 15 foot wide landscape buffer
on Wells Street and put in a pedestrian pathway to connect the two neighborhoods.
There is no direct connection, but there will be a sidewalk that will connect into
Woodbridge. With the traffic concerns we went ahead and commissioned a traffic
report. I have got a copy of that if you want to go into it later tonight, but the traffic
report came back favorably, as Craig just mentioned. Last week we went in front of the
commission for ACHD. The commission was unanimous in their decision to approve
the -- to approve this project with the conditions placed upon it by staff. Their staff had
recommended approval. And, again, another shocking statement. I have no problem
with everything that was in the report. A couple other changes that we came up with
after meeting with your staff and with the neighbors. We decided that along the back
side here we would go ahead and make these lots deeper. As this was originally
drawn, we went with 80 foot deep lots there. We decided that wasn't deep enough
backing up to Woodbridge, so we went to one hundred foot deep lots. In addition to
that, we widened those lots and got rid of the big house concept. Those of you that
might remember, the big house concept was larger -- a large house that looks like one
big house that has multiple units in it. We decided to get rid of those backing up to
Woodbridge. We didn't think it was appropriate with massing and the scale, so what we
have done is taken these individual single family home lots and run them the full length
of Woodbridge and tried to match up sides. So, we have widened those and made
those deeper to match up better with Woodbridge. In addition to that, we originally had
three pack housing, this is housing that would be in three units similar to what we have
now proposed down in the condo area, all along the perimeter of the subdivision. We
decided that we could make those lots wider and make those a little bit deeper as well
and make those into either pared housing, that would be two houses together, with a
zero lot line, or they are wide enough that you can, actually, build individual houses on
individual lots. In the packet that Scott gave you -- and Scott will go over this in a few
minutes -- the housing on that perimeter will be allowed to be either built together or
detached. The reason why you would put them together is you could have larger side
yards. If you put them detached from each other, you have eight foot in between,
instead of 16 feet in between on the side yards. So, we went ahead and did that. We
thought that would be more appropriate backing up on the periphery of the subdivision.
We have worked with ACHD as an unimproved right of way. This cul-de-sac does not
H~. p;, '~~y rs.
~ ~
~~,d~k ~ +~}' f r ~E i" U 6,2~r"a~'+t~~.i 'JFwa Nr y r ~~ 2~ ~ ,~ .- s ~ ; s$~"~T~' '.
~~~~~ ~~ ~ $~ kin
~ + ..+ - ~tio- (i '~~1 ~ ~~[ vq{ ,~.i ,y, jy~~a ~t~ ~~~~>:~~:~>~~sf~~$'~I`sa~ ~k~„~~~"; .._ -
I ~+^^i+}- f •.. } a "'f "`.~;~~.F ~71:.;~Y. {'~r`Fy~M'.'TZ iV RjT ~~ ~ .~ xT 7i"~ ~i r~.r~ t {~ fi 'Yi V"!~~ 1-y~~'r c~r..~ J'tr.t~~~
k f
~~ .f - - ie ~ a f ~ ,.fir r z va ~, ,.t ~#U 5"~`. r x a':ft~i r ~ - -
+ yyr r
w>?~4~ .._ sx ,..{ ei ~~f<+~C x.r~ r~ li~ ` t ~ ?~ ~~4 -
.. 1 n12 ~~ Y',.
1 L t ( ~
~'r~r""~k'''p ..rte r ~" ~'k~a ~<4a uK S ( r~h1Sr~ `~rtr;...r 4'vy^ ~~'_:~f~.
r
3 +i n ~~~ T i~ ~
~ra},1 hr. 4 r,'[ Yy+:j jw~ y`~~~[~-.s c ~~ ,~.ft4{ 1 } 3 + ~ Y} 4 I '3 -
~,vivtVF~ o •~~ P~ r§ n~l~yi`~'-'~j~i Y+~w~ '~e ~~+Y } ~,`~e~~Rj i~ eta~~i~" .~'~.,~3 ~~ ~.>~tr. .:
' ~~ F'"kr r ~ + ~ ~ r' 9 j A ~ a k~'. ~ ~ ,'
t,~ d.~.» ~ ~k ~ t rr tr ~7~ ,e¢ i':a~''i`~!?~~."~'~.a4~~ ~ ~. 5 {~ ~. '; ~ "~ ,y u ' 1 `ha , ,.~~ n~ ,~~.??~~ , +.~;
y.r. . F:
lL/~q =i'C.. .,F. '.f. ~ ~ a::~. -.~ r~,`~ # cx z °'Y~r~;~ti~ ,err -.
~'"~4 ~ ~ S
s
:, " `
s.` °, r r~3~.~:ia +3 ~rsK ~g~g5~1~'~~~'~~ ,.M 3,
ry ~ ~ ~ r F~ ~, C ° : ~~ ~ 1 ~ ` ~ to 4 _ L ' i A ~s1 1 v ~ ., . '-:;~
;(" i
.. ;. ~` ~t ~F~~{} ~•~gj ' ~R'1~ ?i ~, k~ 5~ r~.R~ 4~M Eylk ,~Y~~~ ~ ~.IL i
y ~"0 t ~.,, k g 'ill ~ ~ ~ .'r
~ wr i ~ `~,i .'-~*1 ~1't fir. f ~z j )P :, ~qc~: ~M1r ° ~ 1a' ~ t 4 ~'. S _
~~`k~` <X'r c,5 r E~~'.~"rt`~ ~-,>~r~r#'~* F ,~S~fY~'~.~~ < ~2 {s- r:''T. ~al~r~;j ~' ,mac ~~=[;a tr~i:"~~ i ;
W s -
~ k >r r
J ~ ~... / ~
:~-. ~,
r
' ~-~G
~' yap ~ ~# r. ~ ,~ ~ ., ,..~• 1~_.
r
w rf( ~ _
~ ;~ ~Ft 7t -~ ~` ~~~ f `F A , ~ G .I ,~ ~'~~ TS '33; t '4 `~„~,~ F J
~ ~ ~st•
+{~ v 4 , 1
~^
,
y
~ :kP'~ .~ a~~~~
I' .3~~. h.ro
~ :, i
,~- ~5 "' ti c+. i 'hgS7 ~ t. ~IF~ .4,~, Ch r y~~~"~ ~ ..
to ,as ~1 ~,.f> >t Bkq~ :~t' ,~
fi.
x-. ~.. t J 4
x
~
I ~
~
7N .+' 1 _
~ aa
;','v °~ fi~l~~`~?rt~~xf~, ~ ~
r~
.
> JK~4~~ ~~
.~~y ,L-3.+f~ ..r
~14 ~f'iFF
~
y
'IS.'.-i^ ~
..-. .. ... ~i M. e5 ! '
,.. ~F. ~ f 52...! ~ .f,4~ '. 5~~.+~.'i 1'S ~. S ,Y ~~ ~•.`~.
,,~
~.~.
kip
E+
;ate Meridian Planning & Zoning
~ ' ` ~~ }3 ~ ~
r'' May 4, 2006
Page 39 of 84
~w .] ~
w
~ currently exist. It's, actually, just a field right now and you can see that on the aerial that
_
~~ `~ Craig originally showed you on this project tonight. We kept the open space in the
4 1 .
middle. We went ahead and widened out the alleys from -- to comply with the UDC.
' ~ ~ "' Your fire department required a 24 foot wide driveway aisle. Those have to be public --
' ~ : ~ they have to be private roads, they can't be alleys, because the housing on the interior
~; ~ - of this block all open onto open space. And so they actually have the front yards and
u.. `:~-~ ~.:
P..
~ the front doors will open onto the open space to a product -- I know you have seen. We
~k ~~;
~ are excited about it. This is somethin that we have actual) shown to a lot of eo le
9 Y p p
, " " and a lot architects and a lot of builders are, actually, excited about this. They see a
.,
,x
x~
desire for people to buy these types of houses. We have met with a lot of people. We
~ = '
k ' have had a lot of good talent and a lot of people tell us what they want and your staff
4 . has been invaluable -- they have been valuable to us, the comments that you have
'~~ -" made, all our meetings with the neighbors -- it's been a good process for us. This isn't
~~ ~~~
~ , ~
something that we have put together, it s been a long slot for the last seven months, but
~~ ~"~ ~ what we have ended up with is something that looks like almost identical to this. So, if
rY,~_. you can go to the next slide. This is what we ended up with. The changes that I -- there
~~' ` we go. Again, just for orientation purposes, that cul-de-sac that doesn't exist that will
exist in the future here and Woodbridge, Magic View, and Wells, we ended up with
~ ~ k~~
1 something that looks very similar. What we told you we were going to come up with we
'~ _ ~ did. We started off with 108 lots on that last slide that I showed you. We are down to a
hundred. So, we have eliminated lots. We have made the lots deeper and we have
,T~~""'~ made some wider. We have varied the product type. We now have four product types
~'r , ~ -~} "~
~ within this subdivision. We have got elevations and footprints and floor plans for all of
" ' ~~~~
' ~~
"~
~ those. I'm going to turn a little bit of time over to Scott, so that he can talk about some
'~ .
,
~ design philosophy and talk about the elevations. At this time reserve the right to come
~ fit. ~: back for rebuttal. Again, we'd ask for your approval tonight and ask if you have any
~" ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ' questions of me before I turn some time over to Scott to talk about design. Thank you.
y
~"
Rohm: Fair enough.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman
,r, .~~~.
F' : ~ ;: ~ 405 South 8th Street in B
goal and our philosoph
~~
together for the Comp P
~" ~ with at the end of this pr
~' :-: ~ ;~ introduce a higher densi
~~` Wanted to do this by I
~~~~~ transportation corridors.
`~~ -: f ~ ~ ~ and it is within a ten m
a
~~' ~ '`~` ~ Meridian Chamber of Co
this is a little bit difficul
~~~
~, :~ i w ~° Woodbridge, Eagle Roa
`~~ Overland Road. What
~_
~~~ ,^ , were looking to fill a nee
~~~~'~~ ~a. ~~ ~~ ~~'~ family residential that w
~_,~.;~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ product and I don't know
~~..
~u,, /.
Hk ~
t 'y~
+`
itF1. 7t 1.
• [~~
. ._'.iY~[t~ ~ _. _ _. __
t r
1t ~ S i
t y! 1
#i~ t r ~1f4~ ~~'f t ~
f,' u
_ ~^4 ;. -
eu ,~'
~ ~S , 1, ~drv ~} •~~i'J~F~
,~ u`r ~' ~
a~ x
`-3 .: ~ eta 1 ~ ~F r' 1 ~9~ -~;
H'r y 4
~ -
- -;
4 `
~.; ~ t
1 k '.
~ f 1 1
v~yw x:; ~ - a r - ~ _y.
-i ~
tY, - - ~ ~u~~RF Y ~ .. "-~ t~l Li l,~l ;^~a"7S'~~:IJF~'f~~"'
1f 3 r ; f ~~e1y„'S _. '$` p ~/?~ Tom{ ~~~
~` ~ ?,~{
~`~~ "t
1 4 t
vx. - b
~ i
x z}g ~i.
•. .,_
«Y 1 ~ , ~
,. ~~~
Members of the Commission, for the record Scott Beecham,
oise. I just wanted to talk to you quickly about kind of what our
y was when we started this and when we put the applicant
Ian amendment and really show you what we have come up
ocess. The dates been talked about, but our goal here was to
ty, smart growth development pattern to the City of Meridian.
ocating housing near employment centers and near major
Of course, this site is right near Eagle Road, as well as I-84,
ile radius of 22 of the 28 major employers identified on the
mmerce site. So, we have accomplished those goals. Again,
t to see on this overhead, but the site is right in here with
d, 84, Silverstone, and EI Dorado, obviously, down south of
we want to do was provide a diversity of housing types. We
din the City of Meridian, an alternative to the large lot single
e are seeing. What we have done is looked at a variety of
if we can adjust the color on this, but we do have call outs --
'~ r ~ t r } rte.
Y 1 i~~ ,~ i ri r
ti ~~
'~ ~ ~ t.rR 1. ~
~~ ' ~ t r ri _ ~7~
`' ~' ti- r ~ ,~~ A~~ ~-:
[~, '~- ~ ~~ ity~`C can ,~ °_
~~~. ~Q~`~!i,+ •~ v~ }YI ~E ~,#~ icy it dAGT1 ~4..f~~ ~' i-t~~ S-? -
°f - - ~t -~.~ ~ ~r f ~,x
.. ~ ~ ~.
kw ka ~4
y~ ,
~, ~ F r
u ~
{,,
~' ` j~~{i. ~ t 1 ..s ''~EV kS ~k7a = ~~ ~ n . P~~t t '~'?i~t,.;flj ~"~i '
~ ty i ids ~ .. F P } ~~~y /~ ~55r,
rY ~ t ~ , A~ H
~ '+
r y( ~~p~y~, '
~Y~ F k'~ ~IY jXS '`ryi ~x~'~]F~ ~{ ~ "~F~t n: _ _
[ Y
~r2J '. _n _y_
j~f,"~F},~ ~ t~ ,Aq ~i. h r
~ « ~ ~.~ ~
h r .(
l
~. ~ , rF ~.
~§i x a ~ ~' ~ + i~.t~ , : ~ r
~ r iz x-ru »~ ,s
Sxx 1 ~ hh .Z3 r, i., -(k ~ -
;k:
__i~,
t""
S+ ~
K V
}
''~: ~ ~ f, ~_.. Meridian Planning & Zoning r
~~ -.' ~ May 4, 2006
•' Page 40 of 84
{F ,.~, -w,~} again, we have got a single family detached product here along the boundary with
~,r<<< Woodbridge. We have got a paired housing or -- that can also be built individually, they
'~ ~;; ~ can be detached or attached on the perimeter here at Magic View and Wells. We have
-°` got the interior attached townhomes that are alley loaded and, then, the condominium
townhomes here on the south. I won't go into detail on the floor plans. We did present
~~ you with the colored elevations and floor plans to show that it is feasible on these
~~~ _. smaller lots to build a very very effective home. I will just point out case in point. On the
` single family detached homes adjacent to Woodbridge, the concept plan that we have
,~ r,
~•'~ , put in front of you is, again, a nice elevation, it is a narrower lot, but a nice elevation. It's
~~` - ~"'~ r:. a 2,700 square foot home designed on a 4,400 square foot home site. So, we do have
~` ~ - '~~ ~=~ a very adequate building and I think this concept plan will show that there is a lot you
~~ , ~~ can do on a smaller lot if you pay attention to the design. Dave, if you wouldn't mind
- by ~ maybe just scroll through the next slide, which is the paired housing. And, again, these
,s ~ > . ' can be built together or apart, given the setbacks and the building footprint that we have
„' rat established on this. The next slide is the elevations on the interior and, again, the use
~~
,.~~ :.~,~_; ~ of color and, you know, modulation, some individual front porches, entries, allows these
k~ ~` ~ to live as single family homes. They are attached, but everybody's got the individuality
~~ =; rte` ~~ of their own home and their own front porch, not multi-family apartment style housing.
r.,_ ~ This is all ownership. The final slide is the condominium townhomes. They -- again,
~ individual front porch, variation in window patterns and so forth, so you can clearly tell
~'- ~~ . ~` ~~ which house is yours and this is more similar to a Brownstone type of product, with tuck-
`' `~ under parking, we have got a flex room downstairs, and the majority of the living is up
~~,F , :..,,' ; on the second floor. As Dave indicated, this product did not fit with massing and scale,
'F° ' - 4 ~~~, , really, adjacent to Woodbridge, so we pulled that away from Woodbridge and have that
~~ .~~ -~ ` stand alone in the southeast corner. So, what we wanted to do is fill a need for more
~r-° affordable housing type for people who want to live and work in Meridian. We are trying
~~ :~ to cater to non-traditional families. These are singles, young families, single parents,
•, ~~ ` ' and empty nesters. We are seeing average sales price -- I just looked at numbers this
~f~~.- 4,, morning, average sales price for new construction in Meridian is above 300,000 right
t~ - now. We are looking at product that we can bring in just below the 200 and stay within
~~ ~ that 200,000 dollar range. I think there is a growing affordability issue in the City of
~~,
` Meridian and we are really not seeing the options. We are seeing apartment housing or
~~ _~ ~'~~ these large lot single family homes and we are trying to fill that need that fits in between
~~ ' ~ :. there. So, the proposal before you is for a higher density product. It's eight and a half
~~ .~ ° ~ dwelling units per acre. It's not a high density product, but it is a little bit higher. We feel
.~~~ ~ . the key to successfully integrating a development such as this is to pay a lot of attention
' ~ y' to the design and, basically, soften the density through the design. What we have --
~` `~ ~ think the way to do that, to accomplish that, is to provide for generous landscape areas
s,~ w ~~,~ ~ and, Dave, if you will go back to the site plan that would be great. Within the private
`~ _~ ~ ~< yard areas, you know, these all have backyards, of course, as do these along
r; ~ '~-~~ ,, Woodbridge. But also in the common areas that are interior to this site -- and we have
,~'{- `~s ~• ` - got a number of pockets around in the community. This one down here in the corner
--' ~ ~~ ties into the pathway that goes along Five Mile Creek, by the way. We also wanted to
~: ~~ =' establish a street tree program that would really soften the street scene and create a
°~ ~ nicer environment for pedestrian, as well as vehicular travel. Street buffers, as Dave
~-..
mentioned, along Magic View and Wells and, again, within the common area at the
a
_~ -
.,, t~
' ;-
3-.. d I~r~F -
~~n`hnY
~hs.- ri
*2~
~~~
i
F
•~ <. ~~ ti!
~~, 4.~}~~7 ;~ °~•t,yypu+^" ~ ~~~eit,~fr~~~"}R4mk ~ ~a~STe ~~tq ~,~ ~~xz3~3~ e.^ ~~ <.L yi D
- ~ 1. ~ - E
. '~ _ ~ _ L S 1 ..~..,...t ~. 36 `t R 72 +~.~...``.tu.If i..... ~ ..
a. ~'
' x ~ ~ ~ y -
}}
' .a.i~~!e-f`:. Y„~i'2t; ;.'~ ~i '~'+`~~ p-0{1 ~:r Y ~.• } '~ '~~ A~ Y ,,~k~f ~a*"~`a
r
w ~t ~
'~ ~- L r~ ~~ rt!r~ ~ 'in yW7 ,~ '~ .'r 1 _.[~6 ~ d'!~~ ~.',~~v J
~sk- - ur', a - ~ ' ,~ `^ - :.r s •i K:,+, ~.g~t :~... wa~ ~is , ~'~ `9. ~ks~`~q~.~1 ~ ~ ~ ks-{ ~~- ~.~,; ~
._
rr k
1a
~ ~ i, 4 -,; - , ,(
X 4h"~1l'¢~{~. ~~ r„{+. dr - ti' 4 F (1 ~+~~5' a,~#~ F f~ ~ r s i ~ ~:'~~` Ql~ ~ : ?'C;ryY ~1~` s ~,
~ ~ , ~ y e
0.`'~-"~ F e,: ~. ~' y -i,~2; +y t ~. L t~ : iti ~J - •f J } .. - _
~~ ~~~'"5 v ~ K~~~~s~'tHSa~~if£i F'4t .g S~ b~~ 1xT ~•~r~ a~~ i~{F~+~ ~ ~~ :: si~`.1
i , ~v ~ x w i3',~ ^~~ ~'l ~ g;~ ~~ b i ix ~ s..4 c,t'~ ~~.+~a w' ~ ~.~ 3°F,i~~f~ rah r~~ ^~~
- Y -
`~ r ~.a ~ ~ , y .+sr wry in
S ~ ~ ;'~ ~r k 5 f J ~1' I~ r3) i f 1~~
- ,r ..~ ~i t ,r~~~ra~1. dz -
4 ~ Y
~ r - ,. r fir- }„ ,t,fi¢N¢ y ~ ~ f n >• t~ n ' ~
~ ~ ~+ v it 5 r a C~~
C++. +cz~r d ~ t s .M 4 -~ ~ :. ~ k i. .7 ay ~ ~ d
~ ~ , ~ s ~ ~ a ~~*~ -`~_,
rr.i~" -a•~~
s
~ r ;y'ti ~ ~
A. ~ rr ~ -~ ,t>.,t
.~~,' rye .:, ,-.a ~Y> ~ ~~~,,, ,;s ~ i4 `,1, ":j{ py" ,r.
Y.*yer $ ~. `~? ~ -'~~ afi7i3't~~ X14$", d is~ y.P ^'~'~`,~ 5~` Iyb ka ~~~fy~pc^°~-
~ }' r~ -Lt's' r F..j~ ~~~~w:~~P ~ _ ~ ~i. 1~~ Y~ ¢~y ~y~~dw~S'~~~3F~A r ~ ~ ~,.. { ~ ~ -
xSs+#ra^F•^- :~,,~r -.4l ~ ~ ~ ~i~ t ~ ~ t t 3„~, ' v' t
~p~y.,; 5 Y 3
sri s'~x917!~fr~?'~:. } . ~--~ _ ~ v' .x_r -a~qu9~~NZ'~.~ a ~~ ~'s ~ttr ~ '~4>~~ ~~'~ :~n'P _ ¢~ a`~.a?~"
r:
~:~:
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
May 4, 2006
Page 41 of 84
center of this product. In addition to that, we wanted to focus on enhanced architectural
details and use of materials and colors. I think the elevations show that that's
accomplished in our proposal. The individual private entries, again, are important and I
guess to close, we are excited about this, we are excited to be bringing this type of
product to the City of Meridian. We think we have got a great location for it and we think
it's a great alternative to the multi-family four-plex style development that we have been
seeing in the higher density developments in Meridian. With that I'll stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Can you pull up your second elevation that you have there? I assume that that is
s the one that is somewhat fronting the street going into Woodbridge and I am to -- on the
backside, elevation-wise, are you -- do you have any -- basically, this is your front that's
going to be facing to the south, I would assume.
Beecham: That's correct.
Moe: What exactly is the elevation going to look like from the street that went into
Woodbridge?
Beecham: Well, the rear elevation will be, first of all, screened between -- behind a 15
foot street buffer. Then, we have got our 15-foot rear yard area and there will be
significant modulation on the rear elevation. It's not -- not too dissimilar than what you
see on the front elevation, with gable ends --
Moe: Here is what I wanted to make sure of, is that we are going to see different --
Beecham: Yeah. If you look at the floor plan it will give you an idea of the modulation
that will be occurring on the -- on the rear elevation.
Moe: With different components in those; correct?
Beecham: That's correct.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. In the elevations that you're showing
and I think it was the final one, probably plan D or something like that --
Beecham: Okay.
~~:~~ t,
r
~4MT 5~ .~
~ ,,,
~~;
hrd e ~-,E ~r
~ jt
:h~ i ~•a
k Y<
~~
* ~a~3~t~' r_;+
,~2 ~ ~ w~i ~~-
j ,l.' -~
j:.
~ :~ ~v
;` ~y,
:~ -
~~ ~ ~z
~~ ~ ~z~ ~ ~r^~
as ~,:.; « e.:'q
~~.,;
~~ t ,~ rr
c ~1',~4
_~* J ''
~ ~~~ C
. ~ ~a ~,
r u f
z ~-`:,
a
M s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 42 of 84
Zaremba: You mentioned tuck-under parking, which makes me believe that it's like
~~ basement level parking. Is that what you're meaning?
'`"" Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it's, actually, at grade. You don't
drop down in. You pull in at grade, you actually step up a half a flight to what we are
calling a flex room, which is kind of a guest suite on the floor plan that you can see.
And, then, you step up another half a flight or three-quarters of a flight, really, and you
'' live up above the garage in that flex space. So, that this particular plan is about 1,250
square feet in this concept, two bedrooms upstairs, and -- do you have a second floor
on the --
Zaremba: You, actually, answered my question.
Beecham: Did I already?
_ Zaremba: As long as you're not going below grade.
Beecham: No.
Zaremba; I was going to ask about water table and stuff like that, so that's --
`'~ Beecham: No.
Zaremba: If you're staying above grade --
'~T Beecham: Yeah.
Zaremba: -- my question's gone.
Beecham: Okay.
t~ Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant?
:-
~~~`' Beecham: Thank you.
s..~~.
~```"~ Rohm: Thank you. There are quite a number of people that have signed up to speak to
.~~'~~° this item and, typically, when we have this many people that have signed up there will
'; `~ = be a spokesperson for maybe a subdivision and if, in fact, there is a spokesperson, that
~: ~ person is given ten minutes to voice their concerns and if that's the case, they are
$~°°~_` actually speaking for the balance of the people that would have offered testimony
gin' themselves. If that's the case, then, having the spokesperson for ten minutes -- I'd like
E ~'~. to see a show of hands for those that he would be speaking for. From the audience a
:; ,.
i ,;,~ comment was made that there are two spokesmen and, quite honestly, I think that that's
~''~f-F not a bad way to go, as long as they don't step over each other and present the same
`" `~ information twice, for all intents and purposes. So, with that being said, we will take our
?4~ first --
>Cc A~
~~- ~'f
eta
.. _ -~~
~ ~~-
a~ '~ 6i`~~~ bi ~
~+ ~a`H.t ~ tit
Wy -''..~ ,.y
A ~'_~ -
~Y~ i
t
r{ a a ,kr
s~
R„
y~ '1 i '.H~~
E"~t~'~ 1 ~ a ~ ~
l `]'} ~'~~T Y iYy.
~`
~f ~~ T !~Vy~!
}~T ~ 4 `~ i 5'"r+~
~l~. ~T ~Y- ~ '.
C4 ~:~
~~~~'~~frry ~'•
1f .y ;
~H t'
wV.~ ~ ~;~
.v''," S S'f7Y ti.tz r
~..
R;rs_ air ,
.; ,; K,
F t~
~. x.,
.;n,F ,
s'; Meridian Planning & Zoning •
~'~-' May 4, 2006
Page 43 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: You want to take the hands -- a show of hands --
" ~'`~ Rohm: Well, they kind of -- go ahead.
{
Bader: My name is Ernie Bader and I live at 624 South Woodhaven and I'm speaking
-;;
on behalf of the residents of Woodbridge. First off, I'd like to say, wow, this is just great
'~_`~~ for Conger Management and for them to have this beautiful little miniature golf course, it
~` ~~ ''' appears to us. We are not so excited about it. And Woodbridge. We fought this
~:~' initially and lost. We understand that, you know, things are changing. We are willing to
;~~ accept certain things. However, this density just does not go with our neighborhood and
' _' ° what we would like to see going next to us in our backyards. Our main complaint is,
°,r><r really, the common space issue. They have what appears to be one acre and we have
'''-" about 20 percent of our community of about approximately 80 acres and we just see
them coming right over into our neighborhood, using our trails, their dogs doing their
~~ ~'~ duties in our areas and, basically, spreading out into what we have that we pay for. You
:= know, if they were to allot more common space, something for their residents, then, you
..~~~, know, we would be more open to what they have to offer. However, this R-15
~Y=~'~ designation -- you know, this many units next to our community is just too much
..: F; congestion for what we have. Another thing is the services that they talk about, they are
<F; ~, still going to have to travel the access onto Eagle that's already quite congested and this
~.:
will definitely make it worse and people cutting through our neighborhood. But,
,,; r~' basically, our biggest complaint we have is common space. If they could add a little bit
more for their residents, you know, instead of having that one acre that's going to be
~~~ shared by, you know, people's front yards, I don't really see people going out there and
>'~'~~ utilizing it. There is nothing there for them. We have a pool. We have trails. You
"~'``'~', know, they are just going to be cutting straight over to what we pay for and what we
utilize. So, unless they could come up with something, you know, a little more feasible,
`~ you know, we are -- we enjoy their -- you know, their allotment is fine with us. That's all
_. ,; I've got to say.
'::j
:"~.-~, Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
~'~~ Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this individual?
::i
~, ~ Fox: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South
`'"'' Woodhaven, with my wife Celeste. We enjoy our house and I have some slides. If you
-,
~;~'i could advance, please, to the number six, I believe. That one. Before I go into my part
~;~;~ of the presentation, which has to deal with trafFc, I just want to regress a little bit and --
because there was a previous presentation concerning two story houses. Somebody
<;~~.:i~
<>~~~j else opened door, so, okay, fine, I'm going to step through. We have been in conflict
.~:
.:a,~s;~ with Conger Group for some time over this area right here, because these are all two
;:~ ,~ story houses. On this side of the property line, our -- about 14 houses, I believe, all
''{"" single story. And some of the residents on our side of the fence have been objecting to
;^~' the possibility -- or not the possibility, but objecting to two story houses, because they
';, ~'. don't want people looking into their backyards. So, if -- if Conger blocked off all the
=t:
~;~~-
_, ..
:.
K. ~. ~:.
~t
Y
• ;x~-.r
k
.`
~ ~~Cr~ ~ ~
y~ ~~ ~}
'F
'. [[C iiss~.
'~~ ~ 'u9
v~ r
~ ~`r~ ' ~'- ~•
-;.a~''
~ ., -
,r. a~ a ;~t,~a
a i~ ~~
~. 4 ,.t yam,
2i ~ ~' ,k:.. Y rt.
f ~'
df .~^`.,7 r i t
1 ±,~
tl~~~~~ f ~' ~
~ ~ S~~r.
~d~??'~'~' ri~'.
a .. T+~ ~ #+~;p
i .
~' f~',~
" F ~'
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 44 of 84
^~ windows on the west side, we would be happy about that. Me, personally, I don't care.
If somebody wants to look into my backyard, take a look at this body, that's punishment
= enough for them. So, that being said, let me go on to what I'm talking about and
believe I need to go to slide 12. We have slides -- we had slides prepared for a
``'~ previous speaker, but he pulled up lame, so -- this one, please. Ernie had to step in and
cover for him. Thank you, Ernie. With high density housing, as I understand it, there
should be several things and two of them that I'll address is public transportation and a
',t, fluid traffic flow. Well, obviously, we don't have public transportation in this city and
~~, contrary to the mural -- very nice mural that I have been admiring for several months
here on the back, there is no trolley cars available for public transport. Now, we have
the horses. In fact, the horses are just about in my backyard. But there is no trolleys for
` `' them to pull and nor are there buses, nor are their trains. Please go to the next slide.
The next two slides, actually. Actually, there is no fluid traffic flow, as everybody knows.
This is Eagle. You recognize Eagle, because it's got cars back to back almost 13, 14
~'"
, hours of the day. Actually, we have an unsolvable traffic problem regardless of the type
~
' of construction that may go in in this area, but we do believe that public officials have
the opportunity to control, to some extent, the quantity of traffic that will be added. It is
obvious that a 50 unit project will add only half as many vehicles as will a hundred unit
`F~' the impact of an office complex will be even less, because there
project. Besides that
,
will be no weekend traffic. Next slide, please. Now, there are some who have
cavalierly stated the residents of the new development will use Eagle Road and the
;~~ freeway, because they are nearby. We hold this to be a hallow argument. And if I may,
I would like to read from this recent ACHD report that somehow mysteriously came into
y.
,~ our possession, because none of us knew that there was even going to be an ACRD
meeting about this. On their number B or their letter B, findings for consideration, has a
heading traffic impact study. ACHD says the traffic impact study was not required with
this application, but was supplied by the applicant. Now, Woodbridge community rates
'~ one sentence. The district staff has been contracted by property owners in the
neighboring Woodbridge Subdivision regarding concerns of existing and potential cut-
through traffic. They have been in contact -- we have been in contact with ACRD any
f number of times expressing our concerns to them, with no apparent results, other than,
`~~ they are ignoring our concerns. I want to go on with this. ACHD concludes --
basically
.y
, ,
they call it conclusions of law. The proposed site plan is approved and that is if all the
_,~ specific conditions, such as curbs and gutters, et cetera, are satisfied. However, the
l
~~ key to this whole thing, from my point of view, is -- and I quote: ACHD requirements are
»~ intended to insure -- to assure that the proposed use development will not place an
>'-~ undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity
.~;
~;;,
impacted by the proposed development. Let me repeat that. Undue burden on the
_'
~;., existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed
development. May I have the next two slides, please. Washington Group International
~ put out this report that the Conger organization -- Conger Group submitted to the
_
~`'`''
'; ACHD. I don't know anything about the Washington Group International, but they are
~,_~~ involved in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan and New Orleans and their motto is
dedication to development. Right there. Unfortunately, the motto is not dedicated to
,yF~ good development. Is there any doubt about how Washington Group International is
~-~ aligned? The Conger Group hired the Washington Group International -- there is a
~"
a_,
;~u .}
r;
i
p ~ ,.
l4rw~ ~1...[
~~~' '1
1 ~ ~,
J'.
i ,
rt ' ". .:
l
~~.fi (iii ~^ ~~~;,M
t p
~~~"'~
t p q ~'
t3~v~ -
n•
Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ •
May 4, 2006
Page 45 of 84
r~
whole bunch of groups here -- to support this development. Washington Group
International supplied the Conger Group with these statistics. And I don't want you to
forget what Mark Twain said. There are lies, damn lies, and, then, there are statistics.
The Conger Group bought the statistics, but we don't. May I have the next slide,
please? My vocabulary ranks within the top ten percent of the English speaking world.
That's not a lie or a damn lie. But the only acceptable four letter word that I could come
up with was nonsense. How and why did the Washington Group arrive at these figures
that ACHD so readily accepted? I have no clue. But they certainly did not ask us about
what paths the drivers from Wells Street would use to drive to Winco. Washington
Group claims to employ 25,000 people. They should have sent at least one of those
25,000 to Woodbridge, so that they could actually look at the potential problem.
Woodbridge residents look at it every day and I hope that you Commissioners will also
look it. ACHD and Washington Group International may have been myopic and
indifferent, but this Commission should not ignore common sense. I have -- may I have
the next slide, please. I want to take you on a little drive through. Some of you may not
have even been to Woodbridge, but I would like for you to at least see our streets. May
I have the next slide, please. This is -- this is a plot layout of Woodbridge. This is the
entrance here that comes from the Wells Street. We have a street that basically circles
around, comes into one street, comes out to the other -- other end at Locust Grove. So,
I have about 12 slides and you can go fairly quickly through these, because the speed
limit is 25 miles an hour, although some people manage to ignore it. And I want to say
that water, electricity, and traffic will always follow the path of least resistance. The path
of least resistance between the new development and the Meridian avenue shopping
will be courtesy of the Woodbridge corridor. And please stop there. Woodbridge does
not pretend to be an elite community, but it is unique. It's not the people, nor the
houses, nor the landscaping that make this community unique, it's the location, because
Woodbridge is situated in a location that turns it into a traffic bypass. This is
unavoidable, because it is so much easier to travel between Eagle and Main via
Woodbridge than it is to travel the freeway, especially during heavy traffic hours. We
cannot stop the bypass traffic. We do not own the streets. What we can hope for is that
city officials, including this Commission, will recognize the problem and help by
restricting the quantity of traffic that will pass through our neighborhood on a regular
basis. On a recent Saturday afternoon -- yeah. This is fine. On a recent Saturday
afternoon I compared the driving time from the corner of Wells and Magic View to the
Home Depot parking lot. Now, when I went by the freeway, the average trip took nine
minutes. Nine minutes there, nine back. I had 18 minutes total. When I came through
Woodbridge it took seven minutes. Actually, it took six minutes. On that same day
took a journey to Fred Meyers by Eagle -- you know, Fred Meyers is up here. I went
Eagle to Fairview to Fred Meyers and it took me ten minutes and traffic. When I came
back, I came down Locust Grove and on into Woodbridge and took me seven minutes.
I obeyed the traffic laws. An added bonus of traveling through Woodbridge was a lack
of traffic aggravation. Believe me, traffic aggravation is -- shut up. A community of 102
units will add at least a 102 cars and maybe as many as 200 additional drivers who will
try to avoid that traffic aggravation. The shortest distance between Wells Street and
some of the shopping down on Fairview is via Eagle. However, severe traffic conditions
-- and that's not even considering the current construction progress -- project -- make it
~'~ ~ ~.:
'~' '~<i rte- f A'$
`•:tiy;~i+::l : ~ 7•
S .... -~
1t{~
i Y ~~
1..
S~ ~~~ y h
A e /P~G ~~~ ~~
1}J~
Y
y~i~y// } N
111444 ^.~/ 'f,°"r~.'~`I
~y~ ;]~ H
~+-.
k ~;E
ISM' Z M1.
f +.>~ c
~,: +i F
f
~? # of f n
~ ~~~~~~y4~~
:f~~..J.. h.
M1~ ' ,'i! t ~'~)'
,.,~
tf ~ lh~u Yh?!+~
,~,. -: aJf,~ Hid'; ~ e~
{`x ~ ''- x
Y~~1 FsRt
rr.~ i ,
~'
~: a,T`aF
~A
~t~
r~
,:
ti'>'
,; ~:.
m,,
.: Y''.;
,:
,;~
~~.
J.
_~~.:
:,,:~,,.
Y .
;, ,,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 46 of 84
v
easier and faster to go the long way through Woodbridge, up Locust Grove, and, then,
go east on Fairview. The Washington Group International paper pays no attention to
this detail, but -- and we invite you to put off this -- put off your decision for one week,
one day, two days, come on with me, we will take some driving tests, we will go out --
Dave and Scott can go, somebody from the Washington Group can go. We will drive
around and you can see the convenience for yourself. Now, our new neighbors,
however many they will be, will quickly adapt to the convenience of the Woodbridge
corridor, because doing so will take less time and cause less stress on their drive to
Winco or Sheri's or TacoTime. The inescapable conclusion is that there are half as
many units -- if there are half as many units, there will be half as many vehicles passing
through our neighborhood and if you deny the zoning change all together, we will
probably have little or no additional traffic to contend with. May I have the last slide,
please. The best use of this property in question may very well be residential, but it is
not yet zoned for residential. When we bought into this area, the understanding was
that the adjacent land was zoned for commercial office use, not high density housing. Is
not the Comprehensive Plan a promise to the citizens of Meridian by which they could
plan their future? Will the Washington Group International and the Conger Group and
the ACRD guarantee that only ten percent of the new residents will drive through
Woodbridge community? Will the Wells Street development be torn down if the traffic
exceeds ten percent? Two years from now you don't get to say, oops, we made a
mistake, because there will be no fix, then. The fix is now. If you, the Planning
Commission, decide to recommend this zoning change request, then, please, insist
upon a development that is more in tune with and less damaging to the Woodbridge
community. I thank you for your time.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual before he sits down?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. These two individuals were supposed to have been the
spokesmen for your subdivision and were given additional time at the podium with that
in mind, but that does not preclude anybody else from speaking if, in fact, they are
bringing up something different from that which has been presented in previous
testimony and I would appreciate very much if you come forward it's new and different
information than that which has been presented by the two previous testimonies. So,
with that being said --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, could we maybe recap the main concerns, if I may, being
density, common space, two story houses on the west side, and traffic concerns. So,
we would be looking for testimony pertaining to different than those issues.
Rohm: I think that you have encapsulated that very well and thank you. So, any
additional testimony should be outside of those items brought up by Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay. And so the next person on the list that signed up would be Celeste
Fox. She has been -- from the audience she said she's been spoken for. The next one
~~: i ~ ,~
t
;~ N °.
Sri ~` 4,~~`.
~;n~y t
~~;~l~f
`}` Y
d~ ~~
~ I
~xi p 'c+''~ a { t' r
~ ~ E. ~ 1 <~
~ ':
`~, r ,'"rr ~`
r \ ~,.Y~_
+n
,~~ ~ ~ ?!,
~ S- ~ V Y~
~ t.!
t: z E ~ s ,~
$ ~~`4 f 7:.4.
~~r~~~u ~
a ,
s, l~rh~.'~~ :~''
rd ~~K x. >:,~
~~~.. n
_. ,, ~,
~.
~~'
f~ r
~ t i
~.
~ c i`
~r M t t~!.rc
~-}~
B~ } < <
~' ~ , ~;
~ , ~,_ ~ ;~
1E.
I
,~::
L
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 47 of 84
~:
..~
Y,'. k~
. ~7 ~;
. ;~; ;:
. ,,:.:
n
is, I believe, Rich Exile. And she's been spoken for. Jack McKinney. He's been
spoken for. Jim Flecker.
Flecker: My name's Jim Flecker. I live at 538 South Thornwood Way, Meridian.
Commissioners -- Chairman. Commissioners. I'm just going to add one thing. I'm with
the group, really, but I'm angry and here is why I'm angry. I put a lot of work in this early
on and Iwent -- they made reference to neighborhood people. I went to ACHD. I went
to ITD. I spent a lot of time talking about what can we do about this traffic situation.
There weren't any answers. We had an ACHD meeting I knew nothing about until
tonight and I am not happy about that, because I can tell you this, I have been 40 plus
years as an engineer and a planner and I can make the numbers do anything you want,
okay? And it's an illogical argument to me if you have that traffic coming -- okay, I'll just
try to put it real quick. The traffic, if it's office traffic, it's not there on weekends. We all
know that. So, you can't just go with a straight numbers game. The other issue is this:
When the peak traffic, which is Monday through Friday, rush hour, the people coming to
the offices are going to be coming in. The people from the Woodbridge are going to be
going out. So, all you're going to do is add to the flow if you change this thing and we
didn't have an opportunity and what I'm crying is foul. I want to talk to these ACHD
people, because I want to know where they came from, because this is an illogical
argument and I don't know where they got it, because it wasn't there. And even thought
I had been there and all this is going down, I had no opportunity. Now, I don't know
what the technicalities are here, but you can either go with maybe the technicalities or
you can do the right thing. And the current Comp Plan is a good one, as was pointed
out by Gene. So, we are trying to change something that's already good. This density
is too much and its argument is invalid. Thank you. Any questions?
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Steve Birch. Okay. From the audience said that that individual
has left. John Strutt. I probably butchered the last name, but that's -- John was the first
name. The next one is Tony Cezio. Okay. The next one is Ernie Bader. Okay. And
the last one is Ray Foster. And from the audience he says he's been spoken for. And
that concludes the list. So, at this time if there is anybody else that would like to speak
to this issue, please, come forward.
Pearcy: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Betty Pearcy. I live at 675 Wells
Street. And my husband and I did sign up on the sheet.
Rohm: Oh, excuse me. Thank you.
°~;: ~.
Pearcy: Okay. I would just like to -- I own the property in question, myself and my
,.:y ,;
husband, and they -- these people -- the people from Woodbridge are so concerned
about the traffic. They talk about traffic, traffic, traffic. My husband and I have lived
there for 32 years. And before Woodbridge was built we had no traffic. We had a -- the
~~~' Magic View Road that went down there was just a little turnaround, it went at the north
''b~'
y~`r' side of our property and just turned around the neighbor's place just right there. We had
no traffic at all. And, then, Woodbridge was built and the traffic is just constant. In the
x~~ mornings I can look out my front window and it's like an exodus out of there. About
~;, r ~ ;.
9
h~ ~ °5.
t .y
.t`-? I '; ~- vr..
> 4_.
~~~
'°~ i Jh :.'~71
s F
.~,~~~P~`
1 $;~.~
l~~.~
~T ~ (2 f [. N 1,
r q . V"~
ht .. ,,mot {+ywl ~;~.~..
# f• .~i
,iT ~~ L~
§ iJCLY+~Y' tY s
~a -~ K k k J L-i'~
r~'•
r v~
y .:y
72r4~3 Y. ~,~~.
QRS.
r
py~, ti'~'
( ,~
yy~. ~, . s.~ nt *yd' V~~+
~" ri. Z~1'~v
~ i 4+
S~ ~tre_C '} G -r~
t 1 ~ . J•X
1'y `~
,.
`'~ ~1
. F~
~~i. ~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 48 of 84
4:30, 5:00 o'clock at night, here they all come back again. And I'm putting up with the
traffic, so I just don't see where they have a really lot to say about traffic, traffic, traffic,
when I have lived there 32 years and I never had any traffic until them. And there was
one man that made the comment about people from that neighborhood maybe walk
their dogs and do their dirt in their neighborhood. Well, we have people walking by our
house all the time and walking their dogs and doing their dirty in our neighborhood and
we don't -- you know, they say, well, we don't want people driving through our
neighborhood. Well, their neighborhood -- we are still a neighborhood. We are the
Magic View Subdivision, even though we have got -- to the east of us we have got
commercial development, to the north of us we have got commercial development all
right in Magic View Subdivision. And I feel like many of those could go to Locust Grove
and go out Locust Grove. They don't have to come Wells Street. They don't have to
come out Magic View. They have got a nice four lane highway over there on Locust
Grove and a nice four lane highway on Franklin that would take them around to the
freeway, but they don't, they come through our -- right by our house. And they also
made the comment that they think that the property would be more suited for office.
Well, it's really not suited for office, because it's too far from Eagle Road. It's -- the
location is really not that good, and when the new Comprehensive Plan was made, my
husband and I went to the first meeting, we went to many meetings, we were on a
committee and our whole neighborhood signed up and we asked to have mixed use
where we are at, but, then, we were told that we couldn't get mixed use and we called
Planning and Zoning and someone in the Planning and Zoning department told us that
they didn't feel comfortable in just giving that whole area mixed, but each project could
come in and on its own merits, you know, and talk to them and consider it being
rezoned at that time. And I also would like to say that I -- I drive -- I drive east most of
the time and -- because they are concerned about people cutting through them. I feel
that most of the people that live in that area would go to the east, hit the freeway, and
go the way -- because what you're going to do -- where your shopping is -- and most of
your shopping and everything is to the east of us, so I feel like the traffic would go
mostly to the east. And I guess that's, really, all I have to say about -- about the traffic
and -- I mean I have just as much to say about it as they do and I just want -- I drive
Eagle Road all the time, I have drove Eagle Road for 32 years now. I drove it when it
was a two lane highway and maybe ten cars a day, because when we moved there it
was nothing but -- we were out in the country. It was just a little two lane road. And my
husband and I, we just want the opportunity -- we have some horses. We want the
opportunity to sell our property and move our horses and go to a more rural area,
because it is a very -- you know, with all the office and with Silverstone and all those
other stuff, it's just becoming -- it's not a rural community anymore. And that's all we
would like is just the opportunity to sell our property and move to a more rural
community and take our horses there.
Rohm: Thank you. And I want to apologize, I just started going down the list of the
against and I skipped right over you, so I --
Pearcy: Just so I got to have my say.
vrq '. r~'C `-~- S+'~1 ~~' ~ i a'1,y 4it''r ~ 7~i ;y ,~t'.r y }""~.`.
fat :. 1 ~ r.~~~~t~~ ~kx ~~ l ~ ~ ~n y ~~ ~ i~~~ ~~p,~~5~ ~
~ 1 t e s q 'S- ~. 4 C~J"~w j-~f`~~
r.ya- P • ~ r ` S's t ~ ~ f + ' -sue ~ k f y
~ ~ _ nay
~, , ~~ r -~ ~ } = .rr <. d a. a ~u, i,
• .
fix' ~r~~ri 'a{ ~ *'}~i '' ' 't' ~~-~H'o ~ ~~~+•'.~°H''•~., ~~.!!i.
,.
~,..
{' - "su ,"7 e~14^R11Y SC ..~ ~ ~ r ;' `~ r 1, } {~~1 _
ro-~
} Y ~ ~ !T~ h r i -
~F'YS c _ , f'1 ^';,~a1~+~ _ 4~ ~'~c~^ r, 1^~ , A'~~"~t T.tT!:f~~~t~ 3~~~+k` w~r~~n~~"~. -
u p
yr, ~ p Yp t~ ~ i ~ ~ t+` ~ ~- ., ~ t h 3 i s~} ,~ ; i ~. ~ 3~+a,t~d,t~ t
'qrs. ~~y ! ~ r ~ ~' t" ~3 a tput 5 ~
Y.*a'd'~ . -4 .~ .... ._'~ S 1 ~+H17."it.Ltl y 1 N kX ~ ~~~+~ tr; ~ ' ~'
i ,~,~ ~~
,~i ; ~en yam, . ',~y t ~ lr(. ~:.t~ v~ F.6 ~ ~-
~,,t T'~. a 7`t~'~~M';+.~~+~~:k,s 7 yh~Ssi~{~F s~~ 3'~sa Z"~ ~' ~yYik_;r~ tr:f as _.sAr
-'yg F i ~~ d< ~w~rt~s ,,... ~ r~ 7 4 ear 4 r2 t y~ ~
i i ~ ~'. i a
~ ~ ~
~itir.-v ~~""..~ d'~` "~' Y~ '~4*~~t X 'r y ~.J.S ~~~EWr~,r~f r{ w } ~,.
c S~ s _ "
~ s: s
e ,.
ea' r ~ ~ '-ice ~ . ~~~~ ?.~ R a ~ ,~ n _ ~~ ~~~ ~{~~. ~~ -. _.x - .. ..
v2~°FtE ~-.- ~~*i~! a ~..~' ,. 7~ .. tn~ !mow ~;a,1
f
~*,
,._, .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 49 of 84
~~~ Rohm: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
,y Pearcy: Do you have any questions of me?
Rohm: Thank you.
;;
.,{''14.
<,,<ia
~~-
,y_ ,N
'.:Fit: i,
:. -;1
ti
;:_: ~~
is
~~:.,
. x~,Ca?
~~`~
~` ~
.. `-~
. -.;
:,
~ ~',
', : ~ ; ii
::
>F~
*~ ,-
Pearcy: Thank you.
Rohm: Dave Pearcy.
D. Pearcy: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commission. My name is Dave Pearcy. I live at 675
Wells Street in the Magic View Subdivision and I want to thank my wife. She did a good
job. I don't know what else I could add to that. She was marvelous. But we have lived
there a long time. We raised our family there and I do have the horses. I believe they
were talking about horses there and that is a real concern of ours that -- because all the
Woodbridge people and all the -- they come walking their dogs, they come bringing their
little kids and they want to feed the horses, they want to pet the horses, and the liability
could be pretty bad. I mean it's just starting to get scary having them come along there,
so I know we got to get them horses out of there before somebody get bits or hurt,
because it's not like it was when we first moved there. It was great then. And we have
never once complained about Woodbridge. We never gave them any problem. Even
when they come right by my bedroom window every hour of the day, every hour of the
night, they are coming in, they are coming by, I can't get any sleep. And I have to get
up so early that I try to go to bed early, I can't, because I'm a driver for Dennis Dillon, I
have to get up, start working at 5:30 every morning, and Ijust -- I get about two or three
hours of sleep is about all I get on account of the traffic, but I never complained to them
and I won't complain. I never complained to none of the projects that was out there, all -
- everything that's been built, all the commercial, the record will show I never stood up
and complained once at all. I said, hey, people got a right as well as I do. Now, I'm
down to where it's maybe my turn to get out of here and do something different with my
life, to take the horses out. So, that's all I can say.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. That, I believe, concludes all the individuals that have signed
up, but if at this time there is anybody else that feels so compelled, now is the time to
come forward. Seeing none, would the applicant like to come back and offer their
rebuttal.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, for the record Scott Beecham. I would ask just how -- a
question of process. I'd like to split the time with Dave McKinnon. He's really the
authority on a lot of the planning issues, but I do want to talk about some of the issues
brought up. Is it all right in a rebuttal situation to split time?
Rohm: You have got ten minutes between the two of you.
Beecham: Right. Okay. I guess I would like to open with saying I'm a little bit
disappointed at the tone of the way things have gone tonight. I think this is -- this group
~ ~ r;.
~.
~,. z~~ ~ ~~ t~;-,r.
{,~ w~
~1~~,~
~~~1~(.
~.
.-+,.-
p.
m~xY ,. ,_ =;i S
i _.i :.n ~ -.~q
~,~ ~:
er,'~
+1tE ~~
~ , ~,~' -.r'l
~y.
~~~ ~ ~ Y~
3,
~ r~>~ ~~~
.f.,' fi ems:.
, a a'IR'
~+ .yt ^;E
4~ f r.
~~~ F
t_
' ~ rr
~. ._~7i
~~kt< Vii ~KZ
~.: ~ S 7
~ `y~
~ .'~~
F ~~~~1 S ~~Mtc
Y:'i `. ~i{ y
q 4, FCC' afZ _, ~
J~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 50 of 84
y
Il `;:
..:.~rl
.;
`~ ~~~i
~~,~.
_;~
°°'.I
r
1
of neighbors at Woodbridge have been very good to work with. We have had in the
neighborhood of about ten meetings with them, different groups, sub groups, within that
neighborhood. They have been very good to work with and I think we have got a better
plan for the process we went through. The tone that I'm hearing tonight and I think you
guys are hearing tonight is one of, you know, total dissatisfaction and I don't think that's
representative of the meetings that we had with them and, you know, I think your staff is
in the same position. They have contributed a lot of time to that as well. So, I'm
disappointed, but I understand. You know, I was involved with Woodbridge. I worked
for the developer at the time and I was heavily instrumental in the design of it, how it
worked out. Jim Conger is here tonight. He built it. We have -- I mean we have got a
great interest in Woodbridge and what kind of neighbor that is and what kind of neighbor
we can be. We really want to be a continuation of that type of development. It's a good
development. I think it's a great neighborhood within the City of Meridian. We want to --
we want to expand on that, but we want to introduce product that both provides a nice
transition and fills a need that we see in the City of Meridian. We have made some
changes to the site plan, tried to accommodate them in a number of ways. We think we
have done a good job. Again, I think we have got a better project because of it. But
just want to go on the record as saying, you know, we are certainly not turning our
backs on Woodbridge and what's happening there. We still have very close ties to it.
And as you know, the Comp Plan has already been acted on. I think it is important to
note I got a copy of a letter and I think you got it in your packets from Wanda Bucker
stating -- and she lives in the Magic View neighborhood, stating her concerns in the
points the Pearcys brought up that, you know, they did want a mixed use in this
neighborhood and they didn't end up getting that land use designation. Again, you have
acted on that, but I do want to make sure that is in the record. She is out of state and
wanted to make sure she was on record. I will touch quickly on the traffic study. Dave's
really the authority on that. But we met with the neighbors and they asked for a traffic
study. Well, actually, we volunteered it. We said let's quantify this. Let's understand
what's happening. So, we went out and we hired -- we got three bids, we didn't go with
the low bid, we went with the -- a well respected traffic engineer, Dave Swett at
Washington Group International and he put together a traffic plan that, quite frankly,
surprised us. I didn't expect to see 90 percent going east. But he made very
compelling arguments and we questioned him on that. The neighbors asked for it, we
provided it at our expense, and just trying to help quantify the situation and I feel like
now it's being used against us and I think Dave's record -- Dave Swett's record is a
good one. Washington Group's record is a good one. We are, of course, no affiliation
with them and we can't pay a traffic engineer in this valley to skew their numbers. They
will only do one more traffic study in their career. That's my feeling. But with regard to
the design, the two story homes backing up to Woodbridge was brought up. That's a
different commitment to make. It was brought up earlier today -- and I think there was
some good conversation about it. There are two story homes in Woodbridge that back
onto this property. There is, actually, more single level than two story, but it could have
gone the other way and in future remodels there is nothing to say that a two story
addition couldn't be added. There isn't a control mechanism in the city to stop that,
guess, from the Woodbridge perspective. We think through good design, good
landscaping, we can mitigate that impact. I wish I was able to say we will go to all
~.
;,p;.-
s~~~s ~!
~':+ .'~;
.. r:
k=~ H' Y. Z
~~
h
i ?fi?
- r is te'
L 3'i~~'h v' 7,1
r
SF- ~^ ~
...
• =/>
~z4
r.
~ ;, r
.~~
~~ ~;;~
y d?`~{+•
~ 'r Y
`` ::
•+
^-sn d
{i,-. ~ .. .t Iu
f, _ _ :..
:!
a ~
~< t., ~ ' i
~ -,~ z
~ ~~ '`~k:
~~ ~
d x'L~ k .. ...
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
' Page 51 of 84
,;
single levels on that site, with the reduced lot size and, again, trying to achieve this
""~`' density to serve a lower price point, it's difficult to accomplish everything and I think we
have made some good strides, but we can't do it all. Finally, with common areas, again,
~
'` I think we are talking about lifestyle choices. We are trying to provide -- fulfill a need in
I
I
the city where people can walk and go, busy young professionals, singles, empty
nesters that maybe have a second home, they don't want large yards for maintenance.
We have offered some yards, but we have also offered a nice common area at the
center of this project, it's equipped with a gazebo, picnic tables, barbecues, a gathering
'~ -~ `~ place, a place you can go and have a block party. If you don't have a private yard, it's
~`~ because you made that choice, but at least you have a place you can go and I think we
'' have programmed that pretty well and I think it works well on the site plan. With that I'll
`~~'~ stand for any questions and defer any additional time to Dave.
Rohm: Thank you. I have no questions. Any other --
k°~
F. Borup: Just one comment. I'm not sure you should have been too surprised by some of
.
~~~'
the comments, because I think the majority of them are the same comments that were
made when Woodbridge was holding its Public Hearings by the surrounding neighbors.
They had almost all the same arguments.
Beecham: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I respect that. We just -- we
~;~ went through a very lengthy and intensive process with these neighbors, so I guess --
,~:
~'=
Borup: I'm just saying the neighbors -- the existing neighbors in Woodbridge had the
r_,;;;
same concerns.
`
~;: Beecham: Oh, I remember that well.
Rohm: Thank you.
~t,
r~~~~
,~..
Beecham: Thanks.
~,
-
Rohm: Four minutes, Dave.
,~;
,. ~
McKinnon: Yeah. I have got about four minutes according to my running watch here.
will go fast. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay broke it down pretty quick, saying what
`'' `~' the major issues were, and I went ahead and wrote them down. Density is the first one
she said and just a couple of quick comments on density. This is the appropriate
;~,!
`~`'' location for density. It's near jobs, it's near a transportation corridor. The
~~~:>~ Comprehensive Plan basically lines it all out. Josh did a good job in his staff report
saying when you want to do density, you do it near those areas. You don't put it on the
fringes of the city, you put it in the areas where those people live and work and that's
`~~~ what this is. I live in Woodbridge, I appreciate it, because I used to work right next to it
~~ and I worked for Meridian, I could walk to work, and when I worked at Pinnacle I would
'~~~'`, ride my bike there. Now that I work downtown I can hop right on the freeway. This is
. ,r_;.~, the appropriate location for this. In addition to that, allowing some affordable housing in
~.
~~:
:.. ;GJy}
. ~ y
y~: ry ~ a
j {"`C
:~
,,
'a' r
~ii_- ~ i
.~S:e1 '' s ~'~~=..s
S ',F
f'-~. ~.~
..~ ~~.'j '~.
y f7! .t
,T ~`~.1 t t V ~~i
i. ~ . ~
. t rtf
1 `f w _
r. ,~ : ~.`
... rr ~-., ~'
_ ~s
~.i~ r
F ~~~ ~ 'L Ph~ ~
V~ .
`'
~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
~ May 4, 2006
`°==~-~~
;3;?. Page 52 of 84
~`.
~:; that area is also appropriate, because the people that live and work in those areas, the
.
hospital and the other 22 different areas, those are people making a living wage and
,. ~- there needs to be an affordability for people to live and work in this area. The common
~` space issue was the second issue. Is there enough common space? Woodbridge is
approximately 20 percent open space and this subdivision is approximately 17 percent
open space. It's not at the scale of Woodbridge, Woodbridge is a much larger
development. This is a different type of development, but there is 17 percent open
;.
`T space. If this were to be a planned development there would be a requirement for ten
percent open space. Atypical subdivision is only five percent by code. We have gone
- above and beyond the requirement for this. This is not a planned development, we are
~.~ not asking for any variances. We are trying to provide open space for everybody in this
^~ development and still provide a clustered development that can have the open space.
The second issue -- the third issue that you brought up was the two story transition.
'" ~ Scott, I had a couple of slides if you can put them up really quick. Gene mentioned a
~~ couple of things. One of the things he mentioned in his comments was that there is no
two story houses on Woodhaven, which isn't quite accurate. Went out this morning, as
you know, driving out, this is what it looks like from the middle of the Pearcy's lot and
.~~~ from Bonnie and Judy's property. This is Woodhaven looking to the back. We have two
stories -- there is four two stories backing up that you can see. Another one further
down. And Gene Fox's house is here. There are two story houses that back up to this
subdivision. On the north side of the -- of Woodhaven Road all of the houses on
Woodhaven are two story, on the other -- on the north side. So, there are two story
homes backing up to Woodhaven. These aren't all single family -- single level homes.
- So, as far as the transition between that, within Woodbridge itself there are people that
have two story homes that back up to single story homes. There is also two story
homes that back up to two story homes. It works. there is a transition between that.
People have that within subdivisions in Meridian and I'd ask that we not go further into
. that. The final thing is traffic. WGI, a well respected company, the former Morrison-
.r
Knudsen company. Been around for hundreds of years, there are thousands of
_~~. employees. As Scott said, we went ahead and had this traffic report commissioned.
Prior to commissioning the traffic report we asked them to do one simple thing for us.
We said can you get us some traffic counts. We asked them to put down traffic tubes,
they are tubes that count the vehicles that go in and out of a subdivision and at what
` ti'r`;
~,;)Y homes and it keeps track of that on an 24 hour basis. We asked them to put them in for
;';7 72 hours. One on Magic View and one on Woodbridge Drive. Woodbridge Drive is the
east -- Magic View is existing east, Woodbridge Drive is the road that exits to Locust
Grove. So, we went ahead and did that before we did the traffic study, just so we could
~~~ get a number. These aren't numbers that we have purchased from anybody, these are
numbers that we actually went out and counted. I, myself, over a number of periods --
I drove over these myself a number of times. Sometimes going to
over the time period
,
the City of Meridian, sometimes going to Winco, sometimes heading to the office. So,
that's where the numbers came from. Then they have to interpolate that. It's an
- engineering process where they say here is what the averages are and here is how they
work. So, that's how the traffic study came up. Now, the interesting thing that we talked
'` about just briefly was what would happen if this went all office and this is kind of fun.
r
~'~~
Trip generation. This is handled by ACHD and ACRD came up with these numbers.
` ~' .
~~ k ~~,
~ tiyG ,'`
~1 YJ i }~
~- r -
a. ~ r~ x i I'K.
§'n ... ~±. ~ f Y
J ~ .:h MM
Yf ~F
a,; r ,;~
',::~
>- as
~rw
~~~.`(` irN F ' Cb`f
F f lais"4~F Ei 1 '::'~3~+
rpf ~- y2 rj ~3
i
y ~'. F .
r~ y T "
Y t' ~3
~'.n "'4 t
~ y„~ ~ , -
,r
,~~
~~ h
~f F F '~ry"1~
~ _
~~ 3~,
5
y,~r ~"
`, t '.
YA ~~~~ Gs ~`',~~"
ti
;;
V{
•i,, ~
c
a ~ ~~~
V
s~ r
.. .",
.... ~ -.
,.~:A,
.y.
iJ.,
,~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
"F"' May 4, 2006
'f Page 53 of 84
They have a trip generation chart out of the trip generation manual and they say for
:;'fix . ' residential per units, so the type of development we are doing, is 5.8 trips per unit or
t'= with having a hundred homes, multiply that by a hundred -- 580 vehicle trips per day.
WGI's traffic report said we are going to be putting about ten percent or 58 -- we will call
~~~ it 60 vehicle trips per day back through Woodbridge. The Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as it was drawn up, it is written up to have interconnectivity. They didn't want to
~'
~ say let's push all the traffic to the arterials. There is supposed to be some
`
` interconnectivity between subdivisions. If we go to professional office, if this were to go
for professional office, it is -- for every 1,000 square feet of professional office you get
11.01 vehicle trips. If you have 12 acres of land, is approximately 25 percent coverage,
``` so taking the same 12 acres that we are developing, three of that would be 25 percent
of coverage, multiply that out, that's 130,000 square feet of office. That would generate
, approximately 1,439 vehicle trips per day. If, as it was suggested, this should go to
,~ medical office, the numbers get even more staggering. These are from the ACHD's trip
~~~~ generation manual. You end up with 36.13 trips per thousand square feet in medical
office or approximately 4,721 vehicle trips per day. Now, if you take the information that
`~ ~, you received from the City of Meridian, the majority of growth in Meridian is taking place
-'"y in north Meridian. Those people coming to these jobs would take, again, the path of
ti E?:
least resistance. If this property were to develop with the medical office or an office, my
,'r~l guess is if they are coming from north Meridian, they are going to come through
Woodbridge. This, actually, would decrease the amount of vehicle trips coming
~;:~I through, as opposed to the office that could be there or medical office that could be
,Y,
.::~=;~ there. I have no argument against the weekend vehicle trips, as Mr. Flecker pointed
out. It's the weekend. We are talking about peak hours and peak trips and this is
j usually, typically, between Monday and Friday. I'd ask for your approval tonight. We
spent a lot of time on this and I appreciate your time for volunteering on this and we ask
for your approval tonight and ask if you have any questions of me. Sorry I had to go so
<~ fast at the end there.
=~ Rohm: Thanks, Dave. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Dave.
~,~
;.~~ McKinnon: Thank you.
Rohm: Before we comment on this, I'd like to just say that we, as the Commission,
~~~ appreciate each and every one of you for your testimony and I can assure you that
everything was listened to with the intent of coming with the best decision back and
;~-~ appreciate taking time out of your evening to come in and testify and it will receive its
due consideration. So, with that being said, Mr. -- Commissioner Zaremba, would you
like to provide some comment?
Zaremba: You want me to start. Okay. Well, I certainly would agree with your idea.
appreciated the well thought out presentations from all sides of the discussion. To have
it presented in an orderly manner is very helpful for us in our consideration. And it's
kind of a difficult thing to consider. I generally am supportive of not making changes to
the Comprehensive Plan. And this is a case where a change does have to happen to
`> the Comprehensive Plan before this can even be considered. As I recall, I did vote in
_; ~;
_, ~{
v;a:: ~
~; ,?:i
rti _ F,,
~.'. b4 . ~4i= '~j1"
~~, ~ ~yJ~:YiYv'r'
~~-`Hry~~G ~'Vi
N Ft
F ~~ "ice
,/ ~.
*~
.;•;
,~ ''~~
~` ~ 4 a
~Hy~
M,~te1 A„'' t+
,,h ;
~„
~~, sr,
~ t:'~: 4 Y 't ,~i
~i
s,7~y t~_:. ~21
~•~ i3
t +`
~~~~
r i1
~r~ a ~' ~#
f
~ ~ 6 ,-1
s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
_ y
Page 54 of 84
favor of moving the Comprehensive Plan amendment forward to the City Council and
also involved in asking the City Council to hold and wait for this project to come to it.
s
Y''' The things that I see changed in this presentation represent to me all the things that
`+ ~ think that were mentioned by us and neighbors and everybody else involved during that
Comprehensive Plan amendment discussion before us. I realize it hasn't been to the
City Council yet. But I realize traffic is always an issue. I realize mixed use, if you look
at one single piece of property this is not necessarily mixed, it's all residential. But
considering the neighborhood around it, if it's all office or all commercial, that's not
mixed either. This creates a mix in the neighborhood to me. I think the applicant having
closed off the entrance that was going to be on the north street -- I can't read it right at
the moment.
Newton-Huckabay: Magic View Drive.
'~'~~ Zaremba: The Magic View Drive makes it even less likely that traffic from this
development will travel west. Once they are already going south or east, it's counter
intuitive to reverse direction that much. I feel the flow is going to be east. I, too, am
surprised that it's 90 percent to ten percent, according to the experts, but I probably
wouldn't have guessed it too far off from that with the northern exit no longer existing.
"~ My feeling is that I would support this project in this new configuration and I would be
willing to send it on to the City Council recommending approval contingent on their
decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
,; Rohm: Thank you, Dave. That was well stated. Commissioner Borup, do you have
comment?
_ Borup: Yeah. Well, not much more to add, other than I think this is a good location for
~~~ this type of development. It is near employment centers and even though it's been a
few years ago, Ithink -- I do remember there was -- there was a certain amount of
discussion on the Comp Plan designation about not having it all office and I don't
remember why that wasn't -- there wasn't a decision to mix that up a little bit, but,
obviously, there wasn't and I think part of it probably was, as one of the -- as was stated,
that they said that would be an opportunity in the future if -- if developments came in
~~` requiring that. So, that is what they are here to do. That's all I have got.
`~ Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Other than it, obviously, is something way different than we have seen in multi-
... family -- I mean it's different than other higher density projects as far as the architectural
style.
Rohm: Thank you.
., Borup: Very nice on architectural.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
~~'
ry +, _ ~:
5}a;,?.
~~~ ::
~,w~° ,,
~d~±}~t ti~~,
,. ~ .~.
tC-t"~- 5 '~' ~t
r1-•w 4 _l3~
1 4; ~
.~,h.
r~~ y I
U.
f.
~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 55 of 84
'°" Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple comments. I'm not sure how relevant this one is,
~'~ but Mr. Pearcy made me think of something. I learned to ride a horse on Eagle Road,
so -- at Franklin and Eagle Road, as a matter of fact. This is the type of a high density
development that when we go to all the training on good planning and what high density
should look like and the type of homes you want to offer for the market, this is the type
of thing that they put in front of you is this type of development and, then, a lot of times
what we get in front of us as a Commission is a bunch of four-plexes that are all made
out of the vinyl siding or something. So, I really do like the way this turned out. I have
to agree with the rest of the Commissioners, I think part of the city is where we do need
to see higher residential. I -- the Mayor's vision, if I understand it, is that most of the
east side of Eagle Road will develop into a fairly substantial medical community and as
"y the hospital grows that's going to increase demand for higher end homes for urban level
professionals and the Comprehensive Plan does state that we want to provide a mixed
~" type of housing and we do not have this type of housing much to offer in the city. I have
more than one colleague at the moment who are looking for this type of home in
Meridian and cannot find it in the city and they are moving to other locations trying to
'~> find it and I think that if we want to keep people living where they are working, this is the
type of development I would like to see and I -- and traffic is always a problem and
, don't know what the right answer is for the traffic, other than if we could build all the
~~
:' infrastructure before we develop, but I'm not sure we would push that through either if
that was an option. So, I'm in favor of it going onto City Council myself. Thank you.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
'~
Moe: Mr. Rohm, I don't have any more to add than the other Commissioners have,
other than the fact I would like to make the point that I do appreciate the fact that the
rr'`-:; applicant did listen to the comments early on and did go back and make the changes.
Quite frankly, it was good to see that staff was very supportive of the project and that,
.4,~I~" basically, all items that we had discussed had been taken into consideration. It's very
~'~ much appreciated. I guess the only other thing that I'd like to add that the biggest
?~ ~
~~:,'I problem I see in traffic right now -- and this is an ACHD problem more than anything
~~~~
~~:~ else, and that is the have of to do somethin m re ards to Ma is View and Ea le.
Y 9 9~ 9 9~ 9
>~'" Basically, I think if something's not done in that area it could be a problem with the traffic
"'" ~%
~ going east, but at the same point they can always pick up the street that's just --
~,e, i
,,
<;;;:
Borup: Well, yeah, they said it's aright-in, right-out is what will be the designation.
,.:
•,;,`
Moe: Yeah. So -- but other than -- I do -- I do support this project as it is.
"~E.~
bx.;.
~~ !
Rohm: Thank you. And I think that each of you have done a good job kind of covering
some of the bases that we try to make good sound decisions from and I, too, view this
project from its location to the interchange on the freeway as good development. I think
that to put something like this at the far reaches of the area of impact makes little sense
and putting it close to where eo le can o east-west on the freewa and north-south
P P 9 Y
,.;
a
.'i=
I ~f ~,°
s ~:%
'v~ t''1ls~ ~`~'?
~ 5- r}d,
y~~l Fi
±'if 4 t `' ~:':~
r,
,
~ R; ~
:~,
I~
,;~'
1111
..
"-~ , 3
•~
. ~
v
-.:4* r ; >t t i ~ r. d "S i ~,
... I
q
)r.. 7`_ k.
7
..
4"
'a
3
`
"
'~!
~
y`
` , l 0. ! 4 :~.Ij '. +~ .Or"f.~~•
RiY~ ~ ,T~ ~q
i `Tk ~. 4.
~
~
'
~
~
r
iF
<<
:
;`Sk; YF
y
1
+M
Y
.may ~ :+' ~~~.,My~". A' ~`~' ..YY
.r,
~}
I ... ..
7 .. k. ^.
., .M.."'~
-
:
1
I• ">x.. r.,.: ...~~ r.
, ~
;T~ -1. '~~.~ ~
<,~,{., r„ 'r.:.~,' g it @ i;i.{, ~
~1~•~ ,'wu.
t
r ~
J
~ ~ ~
~ r. 4~
p ~
Y. S
tea. I "' '• s.
.
~
~
,
1 ~
e
,'
t
,.r
~
~ `
'I
'
_
y 3,, 4
` ...,
~
`
.
, ~ '~-d'e
M
ys,.
Se 'I, s•~'
., )
~
pp
'!
•
`
~ F
:S.
~ L
S+%~~~'iW'L Y~%:
; ~ .~h•: x' t ~A"~L~
~ Y .. ... . y x ~,FF
+
"• w
~'
'~
~i'
~
~'
~•~
•
,
Z, :•ra
. ~N r
J r
i •
. f.
>, }} •'; s .. .
s,
• i•
s
wk.
J . ! F.. +
4.'R
in £,
i
~ 7 4 ..~ Y.. 4
! :. ~.
,
~, ..
_.
.
..
_ ,
.
'
,,,; fi
~'
~. ~ ~,
7
71 -w r~;
,
{ .J ~'~ ~iP i, n Ta 19ki~ ._:njyYid'y'~4u"~.r~.
`' r
I
,
L
t
I
~ , . i _
I
~
~
b ~ IF ~ a"
~: ..fit •
~~ .ir,~
ii
'
P A -'4'
~~ 4 '~y}~
"~ddr t .e ~~'~ir ~ ^'~`
7 ~~ .. R. ~'~4 '% t~ ~
~
'
~
~
~
r~ 7~'' .~ 7 I >. > ;a 1 ,.I~.
:k "i' d '~{.'~„!~ ~
s. {, r I 11 PP !;•`s`.`: • `..~
~.:r ~~ e• Lr ~
. S< ~ 8b~
; ;w
~.~ I ~
j. '
a
~`
h Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 56 of 84
y.,'' on Eagle Road is the best location for this type of a development. So, that being said,
. -,.
~~ryi-; that's the end of comments.
. =, -j
'%s:`! Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would only add one more comment and that's sensitivity to --
"`~~'~ I don't know how to put this. Apparently, ACHD, Ada County Highway District, does not
.~,;
.-ul feel that the requirement to provide notice about public meetings applies to them. We
hear time after time that an ACHD meeting has happened on a project and nobody
knew about it. As a Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, we have
a~~
three different levels of notice that we have to give to affected property owners within
300 feet or in the newspaper or signs posted on the property. And it still amazes me
that that does not apply to ACHD, that they should notify people that a public road that
,~~ is in their neighborhood, they are considering changes on it, so -- I don't have an
~~ answer for that, but I guess that's a legal question and an Idaho state law question. But,
again, I'm surprised that they do hold hearings without people knowing that it happened
w, I' and you're absolutely right, they do. They don't give notice in any manner that I'm
~`` familiar with. So, that's just a comment. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public
~`;
Hearing on AZ 06-017, PP 06-017, and CUP 06-012.
~~ Moe: Second.
.~x
~~~;
~:~~ ` Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-017,
PP 06-01, and CUP 06-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion
_.: carries.
'`;~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-017, PP 06-017, and
CUP 06-012 as presented in the staff report for the original hearing date of April 20,
2006, with no modifications and with the addition of notice to the City Council, as they
already know, that this approval recommendation is contingent upon their acceptance of
a previous Comprehensive Plan amendment that's related to it.
~~
Borup: Second.
Moe: And the ACRD report. Do you want to include that in --
Zaremba: It's not covered? I thought it was. We need to add --
Borup: It was covered on the verbal --
Zaremba: Okay. I forget. Did they have any requirements that we didn't already have?
iy ~h..
2n `F h
w T
~t ~ ~
W 1"t~~G2 ~a,
p+~ :.; 1~
m.
L
~r ,g~.,,+~. ~,:
,{
!! C p/-~
{4 ~~ 4
~ cif ~~~ °~ ;;
k ~
~~t:` r {_
~~ ~ }
~~{~+`° r ~~f tl
~ },
r~~_ b F
z~i ;~~ k '~
R '1 e~q: t i r 4~ -
~,.. ,-~~y °-
~~y'1 r c t ` p iti
~.,~ 4'. ... .
,q~~ y~i
~ {':_r
~ b ~~~~,`
~?:. *~r F
~a ,~: - ~~-"'
~'ft ,. ti. 3 t.Y ~..
a n, s
K ~;. ~_}.
. . '~. - .,
~ ~;
~} 1~~ ~
k~y*tk'j'~° ~itii!
~ ~ .,
f 2
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 57 of 84
Hood: April 26th is -- their commission acted on this application. I will insert those
comments anyway. You don't need to necessarily make it part of your motion, but I will.
We just recently received those, so I will add them for City Council.
Zaremba: I would note for the record that we did have comments from staff about the
ACRD record and those will be included when it goes to City Council.
Rohm: We have a motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: We have a motion and a second to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-017, PP 06-017, and CUP 06-012, to include all staff comments for
the hearing date of May 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Thank you, everybody, for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
'~ Item 14: Public Hearing: RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L
(Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz -
~~ 608 West 3rd Street:
Rohm: At this time we'd like to continue the hearing this evening and start with opening
_ , up the Public Hearing for RZ 06-002 and begin with our staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm going to make this
E :,~, really brief. This is a pretty cut and dry application. If you notice the arrow on the
screen there, there is a small piece of property, it's 0.22 acres, it's currently zoned I-L,
;~~=~~~~ as you can see. The OT that's right by it -- there are some parcels in this area that are
~;,.
. ;~r,' zoned OT. It's an industrially -- for the most part industrially zoned area, but there are a
lot of residences in here. Those residences are nonconforming uses, because the I-L
-, zone does not allow single family homes. The subject property owner would like to sell
;~=~
~- ~~ ~' this property and the home that's on the property. The financing people will not give
them financing for this sale, because if the house burns down in an I-L zone, we will not
~~-`. allow them to rebuild the house, because it is in an industrial zone. So, they have
~' applied to rezone this property to OT. That is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
single family uses are allowed in the OT zone, and staff is recommending approval with
*t'` no conditions. So, I will stand for an
y questions you may have.
-°,., Rohm: Caleb, that was very nice. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the
applicant like to come forward, please.
Lantz: Hi. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Stan Lantz, I live at 1892
North Monico Way. I started this process -- I first talked to Caleb quite some time ago
:.." when I first decided to sell that property. Never realized how tough it was. In the
,,.r : ~~: ~.,
~, bis, ~..: + ~.
~ k'.
~ ~ N ~~ }~i
t
f R ~5j*a
~~ ~{f~ ~ ~~}~
A
~ *~
Tf.
~~:
~c '.~4
i~}.~.
Y,
K ~ !:
1 ~ 3 !
~~ =~a.
~,~~~
I~ ~:
~~~~ s„
s
~} j~; ~. ~:.t
i ~ ar ~`
i~ ~,~
~.~w~erw ti r f"
~'` ~'' ~
"~ ~a,"' r
~L~ s s s",. '',
hh..'' s;7
T~vi ~~~' N
P ~ ~_
~_
.~: '
~ ~~
` Meridian Planning & Zoning
' May 4, 2006
Page 58 of 84
process of getting it ready to be rezoned, I have had the property surveyed. I had all
the property pins put in. I have talked to all the neighbors. I have done everything I
~~ have asked -- been asked to do and certainly hope you will see it to my benefit and
approve the rezone to Old Town.
-`~ Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Lantz: That's all I have. Do you any questions of me?
Rohm: That's pretty much it. Thank you.
-~ Lantz: Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none,
any discussion?
,y~,,
~~
Newton-Huckabay: Well, Mr. Chair, for the benefit of Mr. Lantz for what he's been
~'= through, we should at least go through a lively discussion.
>,:r, Rohm: You know, I guess we could.
I Newton-
Huckaba Its oin t
o r
be ather anti li
c macti ir.
y• g g c, s
~~ ~ Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-002.
Zaremba: Second.
-:.-~ Moe: Second.
~~~~~~~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and three seconds to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-002.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? I would comment that I appreciate that in the packet is the
letter that the Lantzes used to notify their neighbors of a neighborhood meeting and we
always appreciate seeing that that happens. Appreciate your doing it. I would also
comment that the only comment that was sent in in writing from aneighbor -- it looks
+~,' like from Jane S. Cain, who was in favor of this. According to the Comprehensive Plan
and all the planning for this area, I think Old Town is the right thing to do.
Rohm: I do, too.
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion?
~.
.t~fP~..
_,.i= _
i
,a ..
~' a
~"~ ~ ' `,
~~~F
~~ ~_
~ ~ ~;,
3 ;i"~W ~- :3`~
t y E-k,
r c2v ;!' a~ .H
N~ ai :: ~.; ~~
~ ~: ~
!„~~~ ~ Y' S '.. ~!
~ ,
~ ~ rL ? a z '~'~
r ' a •~ '
r~'~~
a+ ~
~~~~~~ ~
xa r ~jr
,. y ` i,
_,; ,~.~
r. ~ _
+f 1=:
C/ Y n i
~ c1y
~' ~~ ?
~ f f ~
~'i nN} ~
4
I.
r ,'~ ~ t:r.fi:gl
rt' +~
tpo k ':!~
Se Sri
F
~ t~t~~ ~ t
~'' t e
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 59 of 84
Rohm: I'm ready to hear a motion.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay closed the hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: I did not.
?~-~ Borup: Actually, I did. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City
~'`` Cniincil of file R7_ OF-~~2 as presented in the staff reoort for the hearing date of Mav
-~ 4th. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 06-002. All those in favor say eye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
z-, Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23
commercial lots on 31.37 acres in a C-G zone for Centrepointe Subdivision by
Winston H. Moore -northwest corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road:
''` Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-020
y~..- related to Centrepointe Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Y~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This one's almost as
straight forward as the last, but I think we better spend a little bit more time on it. It is
Centrepointe Subdivision. The map that's on the screen right now is not quite accurate.
~~~ The property does include this RUT piece and it goes around the -- about nine acres
that will be Kohl's here very shortly. So, it kind of goes around like that. There are 23
commercial building lots on this site. It is all zoned C-G now, so the RUT that you see
here is not accurate. It has been rezoned. There is an ordinance to rezone that to C-G.
Our mapping just hasn't quite caught up with that yet. So, we are on the northwest
corner of Ustick and Eagle. There are 31.37 acres. The proposed subdivision is right
here. So, that Kohl's site is the out-parcel along Ustick Road. The applicant is
proposing to -- and I have got another exhibit here to follow this up. This is a public
street that aligns with the street in Sadie Creek to the south and there are a couple
other access points somewhere in here. I can't quite make them out. I think that's one
there that aligns and, then, I believe there is one right there that also aligns. Maybe I'll
go to that other exhibit real quick. So, the boundaries of -- let's see if I can get oriented
here.
Borup: You're one slide too far.
Hood: Yeah. I was just going to show you the overall master plan for the public -- right
now that street ends somewhere in here. And it will be extended in the future to go up
~~ ~~ ~ -
~Y ~' » ;~
', ~:~
.t _~
't~ r~~~ ~
k.~ .-s
~r~i r s A°
~~
~r?,
1 -."f.~ ::.~5
x i;
^ ie • a~ L
;~
~ ~~ ~.
. ~,,
;;
f .~ ^f 1ST
?~,:j~
~'.E.,, 4 ~r'A
- !E.,. ~ .-:may
~~:y{~
3Y
7
4 ~ :^f~` 5' tr
r.~n, , ~~
"~ h
;K
~... ;
af.-
~-dfjtjf~~F S~
,:i
4 ~/
-z
'
``'~
x j,; Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 60 of 84
to Cartwright as a pretty major thoroughfare and, then, out to the future light at
Wainwright, which is at the half mile. So, I just wanted to show you that exhibit. It's a
temporary -- will be a temporary public street dead end, but there will be, I believe
a
~_ ,
street that -- maybe Jonathan does have that on this exhibit -- that comes out -- back
out to Eagle Road. So, again, that public street will be extended. This is a private
driveway now that one of the three access points that were approved to Eagle Road for
ti ~ this site. There is, I believe, another nine or ten acres further to the north -- 20 acres
,
excuse me, that's further to the north that is not a part of this application either that will
be a future phase, basically, of Centrepointe. But this is the first 23 lots in here. I think
'~ I'm going to just jump to the applicant's response letter dated May 3rd and just touch on
a couple of the proposed modifications from the applicant. I think we are in general
agreement, we just want to make sure that all the T's are crossed here and everyone is
on the same page. I hope you all have that letter, because that's what I'm going to
}# base, basically, my staff report from here on out on. The first couple of sentences in
-,`;s°. that, basically, are just statements. There is some clarification by the applicant, but I
don't believe that there is anything that's -- you can feel free to change them if you like, I
don't think there is anything substantial there that we don't see eye to eye on, they just
want some clarification that they are even further complying with some of our codes.
The first one I'm going to talk about is Exhibit B, 1.1.10, and there has been a little
change -- I apologize, because I used an old condition for this one. Since I don't know
`~ ~~
; how -- how many of you all know about Destination Place, there is kind of this -- long
a :. story short, the director has determined that irrigation pump houses are public utilities
~ and public utilities are allowed within street buffers. So, we are allowing those. We -- in
~
~=~~ the past the determination was is that those had to be outside of required street buffers.
~r:.. Being a public utility, though, it seems more and more to be the case that they do need
i;'~,:y~~~
i to be within those landscape buffers. Now, we do want to make sure that what -- that
,~
s =~ti=~1 the housing of those pump stations is in tune with the neighborhood and the
development. We currently do not have any design standards. Some of them look
d ,.=-,'I better than others. They are all pretty general in size, ten by ten or 12 by 12, roughly,
~~ a pump houses, but that condition 1.1.10 we can remove. I do not even need it to be
~,;. modified. The impervious surfaces are prohibited in street buffers, but, again, this is not
. an impervious surface by definition and so it's a public utility. The next one on the
,,: applicant's letter -- also that's 1.1.10 that I recommend that we just remove that whole
;''`j condition. Exhibit B, 1.1.13 talks about the Fair Housing Act. A commercial subdivision,
``*"~! the Fair Housing Act does not apply. I apologize for -- I don't even know how that one
got in there, to tell you the truth. I think someone snuck it in. But that one can be --
1.1.13 can be struck as well. Exhibit B, 1.1.5, there is just clarification that they have
' ' alread com lied with that condition or the are workin tow r
Y P y g ads compliance, so I think
_~~~
, that one should remain. It sounds like they aren't going to have a problem meeting it, I
~~,~ just wanted to clarify where they are at kind of in that review process with the Layton
Lateral Association. I'm going to skip -- and the applicant can sure expand on these if
~'
s he wants. I'm going to touch on the ones that I think that need to be clarified anyways.
- And that's -- 2.8 I did talk with Mr. Cole today a little bit about 2.8. That's a standard
_ condition. It says that the pressurized irrigation pump station shall be located on its own
lot and that last part of the sentence -- you know, not in any required street -- required
landscape buffers, if you could strike that last part of that sentence. It does need to be
Y
~ t ~}Y
}~~ ~ h ~
r.'~. F,„iu i.S
,., `h
f~:
~~ j t Z~: y ~ ~
u~~; ~ :~~
.d t .3
r
a- ~. y.ti
~~k ~ Y~1
,d,._, ^§. ~.
l
~ f
y~}Y7~'4 ~ PPr'tl~,
' ~ G•
'.~.y""rq~~:
% }
4 _ 1.;
~~1 :~
),~; (` ~
G7 } W
w Sr~!"4 '~ ~~
~~.h 1,+fi • ,ir '.
~ <• ~~~
ti5
Z +.~.
1 hi: ,~:
~} t
j ~.
H ti
~,F ~ . '~
de ~ Y,
51
r r
~ ~ ~''~ ~
~.,
r T '~
y.
~ ': r
s' ~ z
-s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 61 of 84
~~,.
°~:
on its own lot. It does not -- it can encroach within our required landscape buffer. We
~r~x~~ , will probably require some additional screening of that structure and such, but it can be
```a" in there. And, then, I'm going to jump to -- I'll let the applicant talk about 2.1. -- no, I'll
- talk about 2.14 as well real quick and, Mike, feel free to jump in here, too, if I -- we are
kind of going in a Public Works section of the report here. My understanding is that
~ Mike's okay with the applicant's language in the letter, so if you can just insert that
'' language, remove the existing stuff. It, essentially, says the same things. It will allow
~~ them to pull foundation permits, basically, but not allow them to begin constructing the
buildings or anything that's combustible before all those required improvements are in.
- So, it does allow them to do some construction. 2.16 is the last one in there and I do
have language that I'll read into the record that Mike would also like to strike the existing
condition and replace it with: Sewer, comma, water, comma, pressurized irrigation,
~ comma, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior
"` to occupancy. Other required development improvements, such as fencing, micropaths,
and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. So,
effectively, it's letting the applicant -- requiring the applicant to construct these things
~ that we don't allow you to bond for, sewer, water, those types of infrastructure things.
s
' The other non-life safety things they can bond for as in a typical subdivision,
landscaping, if it happens to be wintertime and they can't put those type of
<~~'~' improvements in, that we take in sureties and we can allow temporary occupancies until
^.. ~, weather permits. So, just to kind of put that in context a little bit there. I think I'm going
~~~` to just stop there. I'm sure I missed something and Jonathan will go ahead and add to
°~~~''~ that, which -- I have got some things that I believe he's given Barb a site plan here and
;y-~_ anything else that he wants to talk about, I guess. I did -- maybe one more thing just
=~: real quick is the landscape buffer along Eagle Road. I did mention it in the staff report.
The applicant -- first thing -- I believe it was Monda -- submitted an a lication for a
Y pp
variance to use some of the existing right of way on Eagle Road to count towards their
~y 35 foot wide landscape buffer. The main reason -- and I haven't gotten through their
!_ ~', application fully, but pre-app'd it and I'm pretty aware of what the reason behind this
'~ >~~'~ request is. ITD has a huge right of way and with what they are doing -- what we starting
~.;;
-~
to see now from the interstate to Franklin Road and the center divider and not making
the commitment to not widen this to a seven lane freeway, it's going to be, you know,
-`;:~~ two lanes with turnarounds and that's what the street's going to be and we are not
making it any wider, there is a pretty good chunk of right of way that's left over after you
get through with their plan in the Eagle Road corridor study. So, the applicant's
proposing to use some of that. And I don't want to get into this too terribly much, but the
site plan and the landscape plan, preliminary plat, all depict the landscape buffer fully on
~;k their property and outside of the right of way. The variance will probably catch up with
this application at City Council and they are the ones that will effectively act on it, but
did want to make you aware. It is a little bit different and something we are going to
evaluate here in the next few weeks. So, just to point that out as well. So, with that we
are recommending approval of the application with the conditions listed in the staff
report and I will stand for any questions you may have.
'~~ Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Jonathan, you're on.
- :,~~.
f <;_- ~t.
,*
~. . ~r-a'
k ~?s•~~ti ~'.
~.
,- ,:
,~ :rte ~ :>~
„~ .:.
,;,
,*~ '~
r* a;. 7 ~ '; ~'
,~
F r,,`F ~
~ ~~
~~ F ~
~.
~y ~~ ~~
~r a ~,:i }~Vi
f.
p~f y ~~
~$ .) , . Y
~~~{ ~ 1-~'. 'l.
t ~'
~.-. ~Ln.
1r~ ~ ~
t ~~' ~} 'y~ to
J
{
~ ,c ~3~gg
i!'4 ~ ~' ,
. ~s". ? a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 62 of 84
Seal: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore
company. 1940 Bonito, Meridian. Could you -- thank you. Just before Iget -- I have a
couple -- one clarification on this letter I'll get to, but I'd like to just give you a very quick
overview on this project if I can. First, as he mentioned, this line right here is for the
Kohl's department store. We have already come in for a Conditional Use Permit
approval. I'm pleased to say -- and this has been a lengthy process, that starting
Monday we are going to start construction on this building. And that's not been an easy
task, but we are real excited about that. And that's, really, been the straw that's really
going to stir the drinks of this entire project. Having said that, one of the things -- to just
give you a very quick overview -- that we agreed with with Kohl's on is we are going to
put it -- as Caleb said, we are going to put in this public road back here, which will at this
point stop right here right now, but ultimately will continue to Wainwright. This will be an
ACHD road, of course, built to their standards. There will be a traffic signal down here.
We have got ACHD to agree that we could put a traffic signal down here with the Kohl's
department store, so we will be putting that in. We will also be doing landscaping along
this entire thing. We will add landscaping here. It will be 35 feet. And, then, also 35
feet along this area. We will also landscape ten feet on either side of this public street.
Now, our other intention is we talked a little bit about the parking and being able to do
the parking as part of the plat process. What we are intending to do is put these drive
aisles in that will connect from Eagle Road to this -- I believe what will be referred to as
Sadie Creek. Also this drive aisle right here, this drive lane right here. We will put --
with parking in for Kohl's, and what I would call as probably phase one parking, we will
put this parking also in. This parking area up here right now, we don't have any plans to
do it at this point, we are simply asking for that, because it gives us a little bit more
flexibility and this is -- this is somewhat fluid and this may change. So, obviously, we
will come into the building department with plans. But I just wanted to give you a flavor
on that. The other thing is, as Caleb had mentioned to you, we have also agreed with
the access points at Eagle Road. Winston Moore -- we are going to do -- if you could
flip over to that one with the -- yes. That one right there. And this is only part. What we
are going to do is we are going to be installing dual left-hand turn lanes and the
intersection both north and south of Ustick. We will have right turn lanes here. We will
have deceleration lanes into our project and we are also installing curb and gutter along
the entire length of our project. We will install curb and gutter partially on this side and,
then, also south of Ustick and Winston Moore's paying for that himself. If you can flip
back to the other -- as far as the pump station goes, as I mentioned, this will be located
down here. We had to put it down here, simply because of the design. It's really not the
place we would like to put it, we would have preferred to put it up here, but it just didn't
physically work and I'm not a civil engineer, so I would do a lousy job of trying to explain
to you, but we looked at it every way we could and this was the only place we could put
it. It certainly will be of a quality I think -- I think I'm comfortable in saying with Winston
Moore, he builds quality projects. This will be no exception. And certainly with the fact
that this is going to be a very visible thing, it's going to be attractively done. We are
going to actually try to lower it as much as we can, so it's as little visible as possible.
We can certainly -- we have no objection to putting that in a common lot down there.
think with the exception of that, I just wanted to, as I say, give you a quick overview.
We, obviously, would ask you today to approve this project to enable us to move
44 ~,~'
'Y >t^, _ , ~ a~ lr..~~~~ a _r~ ~~~ ~ a~ ~Er'~'?','f''ae1~~3ej~! ~+'~~!~' ~,~~~t'~x.
{n:,:- -
`fi } , < r ~ t ti a~C
ym > r1 fi n
i ?~ .r - [ ,~. ;; alp ~;A. tt ~: f~ s "~ }` Y z '; 1t t -~'.+~ n, ~.
7~+ y~ ,fit ~, ~~.. 0 i
~~Fr6 h~.i ~r~~~k y Iii ~ ~{. ? -a ~~~~~ ~q-.~ +
~y~~~ ~ - .~i~ ~~~,~~r'i~3'x ~~`3 r V ~'~S~rsX , ';~~ 4ra~+~~~~5~'7+ .=x~ ?~~~' .a
7 ~..- . ,..•.
Kk M'r. t j 2' ~v 4x-+!'~ .~~~j ~ i'Y,~'"itt,~.! ~~~~t y 3 ry'~s.~, 1 ~ .may 5' ~.bi~ y~~~~
~.~ '~.: is ~~~~ ~,~,~~ ~ ~C 1.,_ ~. s .Frr. V JaA .o.,..
~~a F.`` 1.. l.,. ; ~.. .,~"7--~ ~i'7~'~~~ ~ ~dk~sa i`il.~~{~ ~y ~~a~} 3~F ~ ~s'~
~ ~ r „~ t
~~„ Fes, ~ ~~~~~~ .~„91~ .n ~ ~,~y~?t a ~~ ~` , ;G^~'~ d; its a ~ ~, ;~".~; ~.s *~
6^
4~ ',
4'k ^.~• ~ '~ ~ ~' ,~,~ ~ 1 s ~+~k,[t'ys ~t i l .:~ ~ ..~ Y~`F ~ ~~ s£ j !} ~' "'s ~ _
+~~ 4 -Y ~~F .!~q } ~:~
,~xc3.. .r. !~~ :+ ; »- nt?k. f~i.cw-_~1~5 i~ ., Fr ~ ~~~¢:Ek cZ" ~~ '.~4 At ~.
(q,.y"~ ~ti ~~ 4 ~ Y (~ p~iK`_•~ "2. ~.~ ~~a~ r S~~X d ~ ~r~~~: r,~ . ' ?~
~1 ~' 4 '~ y ,.4 t t ~ ~ 'S ~! i~ 'L j ..t+yr 't.~ x~~Ir'S }~~~~~f~~~~~
~~~ ~ 7}~'S M~F ~d /f skin ru'.. ~vai P t~ ~~ }3,, y~ j '...f~ ~ .s S '~ l
i`,y;~; '!? 7 '.+s - 7 +w-~~.~~ ''d 4?.i1'.'i @Z~iF ~c'{_.?~r,1a7 ~~2d~t'~~ '~ 9 js!~~$~~~~,,~~rr~~~"~o~ ~ ..
~~, ~ * -~s s"Saz ~, t f ~ vy ~ !fit M o1 rr$'~a w.
~i,
~A`~,;~" it ~s -
~ "M, ~ S_'. rh pc 7n k-;, _ , t ~,.-r a T%;-a1 a'i.. a .. _
,~,,
3.'.~l'.
_ ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 63 of 84
forward on developing the balance of the center. We are very encouraged with Kohl's
and we can announce that next Monday to the world, even though everybody already
knows it, but officially we can do it. There has been a lot of retailers been sitting on the
sidelines waiting for them to commit and once they do we are going to see a lot of
activity in here. But it's kind of a herd mentality, so -- going back to the staff report --
and Iguess Ijust want to make sure that I am clear on this. Going back to page two,
the item 2.14, when it talks about requiring street signs, water systems, fencing,
drainage, and everything, my understanding -- we are doing over at Grandview right
now, is as long as there is an emergency road and there is fire on there, you can pull
your building permit and build your building. What concerns me -- I heard over here is
that we can start only our foundation. And so I want to get clarification. What we want
to be able to do is to be able to build our building. If we have the fire-hydrants in place,
if we have -- we have the road in which emergency vehicles can get on site in the event
that there is an emergency, that we are allowed to build a building. You still have the
thing with the certificate of occupancy and to me that's the critical item here. What
don't want to do is only be able to start part of a building on -- when, in fact, we have
these items. So, I want to get clarification. I think Mike and talked earlier. I think we
were both on the same page on that, but I just heard a couple things from Caleb that
concerned me, so --
Cole: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, to Jonathan's point on 2.14, his -- his
wording of that we believe can stand as it is. What -- I believe what Caleb had said was
we allow the foundation permits before the water line is activated, but you have to have
water hydrants -- activated hydrants, emergency vehicle access, the road base down
and approved, before you can start building your combustible. I think you just maybe
misheard the way he said it. The way you have worded it is basically the intent of the
condition and so we have no problem with the rewording that you gave for 2.14.
Seal: Okay.
Cole: And, then, 2.16, I believe, that you are --
Seal: We are in agreement.
Cole: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Yeah. We are in agreement on that, so -- other than that, I have nothing else to
offer, unless there is any questions. I know it's late and we'd all like to go home, so --
Rohm: Thank you for your presentation. Any questions of the applicant?
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay. We do not have anybody that is signed up to speak to this application,
but if someone would like to, this is that time. Seeing none, it looks like this project has
moved along very well with staff and the developers have tried to work very closely to
.~
~ -:
?f ~ ,
`11h ~'"' k
. ,e f 1
=~r= h.
,~ ~ ;:
, t_~ ~t ut', 'y
1 L,j-
•r,- ` i
r ~,~~
~`'~~ ~:
~~~:~~- -: w-
sr ~,~
t'f,-, ~ t ~,~~
r.; -.}
2;," . ~ :~
~'' ~
{ k (k
IM ~t;i 4~, U)~~ v~
:J
n >~
F'i
~ ; c; __
~ ;asM Lj,
, ;.^ i
~ , 5`" , k.
y~~ iJ
~y~ 1
T~'fc'~"] ~ 1„Y
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 64 of 84
come up with a product that meets the staffs objectives and I see no reason to stop this
at this point.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-020.
`'; Borup: Second.
;~.~`~.
' t Moe: Second.
`` Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-020. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
l MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let me have a short discussion with Caleb to make sure that I understood
what it is we want to say. Basically, all staff comments as modified by the Winston
..
Moore letter of Ma 3 with --
the exce tion of the ve last sentence ve last ara ra h
Y P ry rY p 9 P
referring to Exhibit B, 2.16 of Winston Moore's letter. And for that we are going to
substitute the paragraph that you read earlier. So, I can re-read it. That works. Okay.
Then, the only other thing -- and this is a suggestion and maybe it's overkill. Under
='' ~' general requirements, preliminary plat, on page three of Exhibit B, top of that page
,%sX•i,
"~'~`' 1.1.6, standard statements, that's failure to site specific ordinance provisions or terms of
approved preliminary plat does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
Would it be overkill or would it be a good idea to add a sentence to that that also says
the existing development agreement remains in force. I don't see it mentioned
= anywhere else and I don't think it's a bad idea.
Hood: You sure can. It may be a better place -- we try not to monkey with those
`'`af°' general requirements too much. It may be if you want to just add it as 1.1.16 that may
~:,
{~" be -- or even 1.1.1 --
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Let me put it up in the specifics. 1.1.16. I would put it there.
Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
`~~~ Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
`"~""'' recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-020 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of May 4, 2006, with the following modifications. On
Exhibit B, page two, under site specific requirements of preliminary plat, I would add a
paragraph 1.1.16 that states that the existing development agreement remains in force.
Then, throughout the staff report I would reference the Winston Moore letter dated May
_,
r $% p
Yd< a
~ y, ~,,, '"~~` 9
,~p~ay4as ~l~f
Y s •'g~
~a
~~s z-= e, fre
rfX ~.
S s..6
~ ' ~ ~~~
~ ,'
6 -
S C ~' '~ j
k`Zi- T N ~. ~`_ F139
~ a;,Yh1`5' KF~ ~, M.J-
. ~ ~ ~ 5
~ 5
.~ ~ f
t ~~
,F 4 ,F ,f_ ~~
rr~.'~' ?. _~" s
~.
F ,; jt11
"~ t ~ ~`.
~ 7u1Y ~ r-. J,'?~~~
r f
~ ~ ~ _
TY' ~~~ ,t Yr ~.
1- ti;. '' ....
~~ a4 t E
' ij: ~~h
~ i
fiyl ~ i ~jr '
7 :'iry. ;F
h
3~ `.'~ ~ r
C i ~l
~ t ~? ~ ~ ~t ,~ ~l
;i
;';
;~~ 3 , ~~ry
~~~
` ~~
%t
x ;,~..~. _, i.~l
i. %~
v~,. ' Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
~ .y,
,*;. Page 65 of 84
3rd, 2006, addressed to C. Caleb Hood and accept the modifications stated in that
°-~' letter, with that exception of the very last paragraph on page two, which refers to Exhibit
~~"' B, 2.16 and that modification will be as follows: This is the wording for 2.1 -- for 2.16.
E,-,'
~~~ Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation and any life safety development improvements shall
receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development approvals, such
,~N;, as fencing, micropaths, and landscaping, may be bonded for prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy. And that encompasses all changes. End of motion.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
n Rohm: Mr. Hood.
,'+ Hood: Question for the maker of the motion, please. I asked -- and it's not in the letter
~~`,
from the applicant. but condition 2.8 on oaae three, that pump station does need to be
.:'~~ on its own lot. The last part of it being outside of a landscape buffer, though, can be
'=~:~ struck, so it's kind of a -- part his letter, part our -- we still want part of that condition to
=~~ remain. So, if that works.
~::'~~ Zaremba: We would incorporate that it does need to be in its own lot, but it does not
need to be outside of the landscape buffer and appreciate that applicant's offer to make
it look attractive. End of motion.
Rohm: Do we need to re-second it?
"~ Borup: Second.
Moe: I --
Borup: Did you second it before?
Moe: I was just noting Caleb's point on 2.8 was to just strike the -- a portion of that
sentence out.
Borup: Yeah. The last --
Moe: After own lot, just strike the rest of that.
~~~`~ Zaremba: That works.
,;~~ Moe: And I'll second that.
Zaremba: That's much simpler than what I said.
Moe: Yes.
y, _ ,.
~; ,-~E
~{~ A~ "~k ` 4 F4 i
y~ ~ r'„, i
a ~.
~ ,~. ~~
a r
,~~ ~ ~.
~~? +s L' ~
r> t ~
f+ a#r
y i ~
' i ~:•~
+l ~ ,r~,^ E f ~
a 2s ~' ,K
Y f? x.
~ ~~
T r• v ~`; r
~ j ~~'~r~
~ }~,~t ~~~~~
~.ii .u X,. "'ray.
g,w~,,
~<
7 ~ ~ ~
k ~.r y
~, ~ ~ ~,1
~~
rr ~ ~ 1
r_ _ '!
z
~ ~-~..
t M
y~.. :'~.. _..
'~. -~t
Meridian Planning & Zoning
_ May 4, 2006
Page 66 of 84
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of PP 06-020, to include all staff comments and attached letter from W.C.
Moore, with verbalized modifications to each. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~'~~Y Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66
>,.
acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15
Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai
°; Partners, LLC -south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle
Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 101
~,'' single-family residential and multi-family residential lots with 6 common
lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots in a C-G
_ zone for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC -south of East
Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road:
Rohm: Okay. I don't know if I've got enough time to do this last one, we better call it a
night. Okay. Good. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and
Public Hearing PP 06-019, both related to Kenai Subdivision and begin with the staff
~, report.
Veatch: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I will be presenting the staff report for Joe
Guenther. The Kenai Subdivision will ask to have annexation and zoning of 77.66 acres
~-Y from rural to R-15 and 31.78 acres to general commercial. Let me see here. I may
a have that incorrectly here. I think the total of the annexation and zoning is 77.66 and of
that 31.78 will be to R-15 and 45.88 will be to general commercial. The preliminary plat
is for 64 single family detached residential lots, 24 alley loaded attached single family
,- ' residential lots, nine multi-family residential lots, 25 common lots and 32 commercial
lots. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with modifications to the
proposed layout. Lots 56 through 59 of Block 3 shall be amended. These lots do not
=~ have road frontage and do not meet the minimum standards for the UDC. The bulk of
these lots may be transferred to Lot 60, Block 3, with a common lot being created to
'~~" provide the spur connection. You will have to forgive me, this is not one I'm familiar
with. Okay. In addition, Lot 8, Block 3, contains amulti-use pathway through the
addition to the Kiwanis park and the pathway should be extended along the western
!', ~- property boundary to connect with Overland Road. A Conditional Use Permit shall be
required for all multi-family units and a private street application shall be required for the
42 foot wide private drive in the commercial portion and (believe -- to comply with the
a* standards of the UDC. So, that if there is an emergency that they can be able to
:`_~~, address those and know where they are going. With ACHD's report -- let's see. I
believe that they had both that they were in agreement with the internal roads meeting
their policies. They were still discussing the need for aright-in, right-out driveway and
~~~~~~~ they felt that the applicant should provide an analysis of why these as the combined
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 67 of 84
.,.;
F
:~
•ir Y
;~ I
~~,k,
:..,.
,;~~_..,
~i
~s
~;:
~`~;"
"'~
,:
access points was impractical from their standpoint. Okay. Okay. ACHD is still
working on this as a draft, but that was their general comment was that they were in
agreement with the internal, but wanted some analysis by the applicant of that right-in,
right-out before they would make their final decision. Let's see here. A few other items.
Staff would recommend that the residential buildings -- that the applicant has shown
several different elevations for both alley access residential, townhouses, and detached
single family residential products and we would like their clarification of the specific
height, bulk, type of material, and locations proposed. We feel that this might help
address some of the concerns of neighbors as to the esthetics of the buildings. Let's
see. As far as cross-access internal, staff felt the applicant should provide across-
parking or cross-access agreement for all lots within the office and commercial portions
of the subdivision, to use the driveways and parking aisles. And one other thing we'd
like to highlight is that with Lots 56 through 59 of Block 3, that that be redesigned for the
pathway stub, which I think I mentioned at the beginning. Caleb, do you have anything
to add to that? Okay. And, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, do you have any questions
that I might be able to answer?
Rohm: Good job. Thank you. Any questions of staff? At this time would you like to
come forward, Becky.
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'll
keep my comments just to give you -- brief and give you a general overview of the
project, then, I'd like to turn the podium over to Mr. Erstad to talk about the architectural
nature of the project and, then, I think Mr. Koga was going to address the landscaping
and amenities. So, I will be as brief as I can possibly be. If Caleb could put up the
overall. I will go ahead and begin. This particular property is located along the south
side of Overland Road. It's an enclave. The city limits are all the way around it. It's C-
G to the north. C-G to the east. You have L-O and R-4 to the west. However, within
that R-4 designation is Mountain View High School. So, you have got Resolution Park
on the west. EI Dorado. Here is Resolution Park. Mountain View High School. EI
Dorado is located here. On the southern boundary is Thousand Springs. The
Ridenbaugh Canal separates this subject property from Thousand Springs and, then, to
the north it's C-G. This particular piece of property is what, you know, we would
consider a large enclave, since the city limits, obviously, wrap all the way around it. It's
designated on the Comprehensive Plan as mixed regional, so over the four months that
we worked on this, it was a group effort with the architect, the landscape architect, the
developers, their own in-house architects, so it was kind of designed by committee. The
important thing that we wanted to provide was a good mixed use project, providing
diversity of housing and different lifestyles. Offices and retail uses we anticipate will
take place up here in the northern portion, so along the Overland Road corridor here
you will probably most likely see retail and, then, an office component back in the mid
section and, then, we transition -- I think he's still struggling. That's why I like boards.
Zaremba: I was going to appreciate your going to the electronic instead of the boards.
,. r kr
i. ,, v y~;
~,~. ~
~ ~i !
a
~ ~ r
~r ~a„cap ¢
r-
,';. ~~ .s'p`y
'ri:
a~;:t_ ~
~'4
{ 4!
.h.M ~ .W
~t r K ~ ,
r,
F 3 R~*
a z x.
~.
! i:, r
i '.
.~.:9: ':Ri.
r
~,.. N
.~ ~.-~
,..i f:~e..<.,y ti~.~: ..
'-1
4~C1 i ham,
f
a,' t 4 } ~''
}N ~ ~ 1'i
41 ~~ti t ~~',:7
:.'};.'d
~. air ~.. ~. i...~
<~r
', •
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 68 of 84
McKay: Old habits are hard to break. As you can see, what we have here is a center,
non-continuous collector coming in bisecting the property right here at the mid section.
If you have driven down this Overland Road corridor you will see that there is an
` existing curb cut that was built into Overland Road. It's five lanes through here. There
-x are arms for a future signal and all of the conduit and the base wiring is in for
'~ " signalization. Ada County Highway District has asked us at some point in time when
this development meets that signal warrant, that it will be the developer's responsibility
~~~ to put in and the rest of the components for that signal. We did ask for one right-in here
and another right-in over here. We meet ACHD's standards for those offsets and there
- are two existing curb cuts, they are not in the exact location as shown on the preliminary
l plat, but they are very close. So, the property currently has three access points along
Overland Road. This center collector would come in -- like I said here, we have got
_ some internal access through these office lots. We -- Mr. Erstad will kind of show you
the building configuration or what they anticipate. Staff indicated in their report that they
~y~ would like these to be a private road. We did not intend those to be a private road, but
'`' more to be like a private drive and if you look at the site plan with the building, the
parking configuration and the traffic circulation, they are intended as like a drive aisle.
So, we would like the Commission to look at that on that summary recommendation and
F. Joe provided that fourth item, it is not our intent to have those private drives. That's why
I designated them as a driveway. The gross density here, we have about 220 multi-
family and attached single family units located here. They have like a quad product
`~ along the exterior. They show condos in the blue and, then, they have Brownstones
"~ here. The view corridor will be here to this central open space area, so we will also
have islands, paved, little designs at the intersections, so that corridor will look very well
_ landscaped and open as you drive into the property. The R-15 zone that we are
requesting is -- consists of about 31.78 acres. It's located here, which is about 40
r percent of the property. So, 60 percent of the property or 45.88 acres is requested as a
~'~ C-G. We feel that considering the intent of the mixed use regional designation that this
~" particular project meets the requirements and recommendations as far as getting a
good product where people can live, work, eat, and, hopefully, cut down on those
exterior arterial trips. We have got real good pedestrian interconnectivity throughout the
project and that was very important to us. I'll have Mr. Koga address that and, then, the
issue with Kiwanis Park and our participation in that. I'll first turn it over to Mr. Erstad.
J Thank you.
Moe: Before you do that, may I ask a question? As far as dimensioning from the
Ridenbaugh to the homes there, do you have any -- what kind of a distance are we
speaking?
-:~ McKay: I believe there are over -- we were looking at that earlier this evening. There is
in excess of a hundred and some feet. It was like about --
~ Moe: What was that --
";
-.. ,~
;~~~.
~:
~.~:
~. _.
McKay: Well, it was like -- what was it, 150?
4, _
)t Y
j ~l "'' -
T ~
3 ~ ~k ~,..
r ~ '~ {-
,~~i~~~ ~
~ -~ %. "`
~. ~~ ~:,
~ : - , .~_
;•y_~
S C
$ ~ ~~ ~ S~.
i J~
~ }~.,. .Y ;.L
n ~ LE
U.
+~.
F' },
it ~:~
,~ ~~:
~~+no j Ft~F Y, Y'-'
fi ~ ~
c",
~~ `
x
yS ~_ 4 _
F s ~ ~~ e k~
~.. '_~
3 > ~~~; -
fi
w~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 69 of 84
Erstad: At the closest -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 420
Main Street, Boise. Suite 202. As we were looking at it -- I'm dangerous with these
things, so -- there is a curb that gets kind of close in this area. There is about nine lots
across the back that would orient sort of to the north. We are about 125 feet from
property line to property line in here and at the closest point we are just a little bit over a
hundred feet. So, we have the Ridenbaugh Canal that actually separates us. We also
have a park easement and, then, we have an additional 15 feet, which Mr. Koga is
going to address. So, there is a considerable amount of distance. And, then, the other
thing -- and I'm kind of going out of my purview, so they may pull me here in a minute off
the podium, but the elevation of the ground here is actually higher than the elevation of
the ground here and as Becky was discussing it, this ground is -- here is 17 feet taller
than this ground down in here. So, at this point we are analyzing removing some of the
dirt here and actually bringing it into this area here from the perspective that Overland
Road -- center line of Overland Road is about four feet higher than -- than the grade
down in here. So, we are going to try and get -- get the grade brought up a little bit, so
that at least our center line of road, when it ties into that intersection, is at the same
elevation. So, again, you will lose elevation of the product -- the residential product at
the southern end adjacent to the neighbor's properties across the end and that's -- we
actually, when we had our neighborhood meeting, that was a big concern and as we
were working collectively on the team and with the client, we looked at ways to mitigate
that and one of those ways is by removing some of the adjacent ground on our
properties to the north. The other thing -- and we will get through this -- if you could --
before we go to the next slide, I'm going to really mess it up here now if I back up. As
Becky identified, we have a number of products in here with a -- basically one and a half
story -- a little bit taller retail area here, so it's really one story, but because of the
architecture -- and we will show you some inventory, the buildings will be just a little bit
taller, more appropriate for the street frontage. A lot of pedestrian access and lot of
pedestrian tie to the street, interconnections between the properties along in this area.
And, then, we move further into the site where we are looking three to five story
professional office buildings of exceptional materials and finished. High quality. And
think the projects that will show you as relevant or referencing it will give you an
indication of the quality that we are looking at. This pad here is -- is a pad that's being
discussed currently with the potential purchaser and we will meet the design criteria, the
design standards that we are going to be applying over the project. These areas here
are looking at one story projects. So, what we are trying to do is create a hierarchy of
single -- taller single story buildings up to these multi-story buildings and back down, if
you will, and as you get adjacent to your residential zone, it's an appropriate mix. There
is a 25 foot landscape buffer, which a requirement and we are very comfortable with
that. These products are our row house products, you will see some symmetry and,
then, as Becky identified, sort of the general mix from row houses and condominium
product to the quad and the alley loads. There is one thing I do want to request as part
of the record and we submitted this in our application when we did our project narrative
and it's applicable to page five of the staff report, which we think it's a great staff report
and we concur with staffs Findings of Facts and we can make -- we really can make the
adjustments that were discussed. The one area is under item number one, proposed
and required residential standards, R-15 bulk standards apply are found in UDC 2-A.
I }~ }+ t
~~r a~.+ ~~~I ihhFi~, Ri~ ~~; _ ~~ ~""t¢tL~r~ ~~ -5'~~~"~ rc 1n _
w, ?,, r ~ ~~~ n
~:a s+s ri y_w.~,1 ~ ti ~ 1 ~~t ~~ .t r ~ s -S 7 ~~ ~
- is a f .~ 1y ~ j f b. aS ~~~
~. ;;
t 1 .~y PS :.71 ~ ~~~f~ ~r'~ A1~ i Y -3~Y4.t 5 1 '} ~ ~'~] cam'
i' .~ '~ r {{ r w 7$
e tr:~-ki~r~L~~F ~~1 ~!4~x~~~~~~y1f^~'~' ~°1~t'~7~'~°~~k
Y ~y t ~~ ,~ LS tl ~~ "l '+~ d }~~ 'a 77'4 i ~„~ ~ h J. w _ _ _
~t' ~~-Y~`t~~~.'~ri~,i. i, ~~V~r `'S 9`i ~~S ~~~ q~~ c ~~~, L4 "~ ~i`~ 3 v
J ~ ,
qy l~. •, ,P,',
-, i' ~.~V+4- ~'~, sir tlY w,;..a a. ~''~G' c~~ ~ i ~~~~t# ;y ~ 1..~ i„>~~Y
rx
?:'
~~ ..a 7; k~-r ~ S r t 7 i ~ 4 1Fn ti ... ~ K ~~
r .~ ~ ~+ '. ~J~'iF 1ti ~ w7 ~' ' S k '145 ; anal
c y
ya.;F'° s N., ~ `ti.$~~'~~,tr {5? ~ :~ F~"~~*~~~,fk ~;~ tiu~ P~ ~` ~i .f ~~V`- _
.y~ ~ '.~ 4~.~ l ~~+~` ~~"~ :~#e~~3~~~_ ~~~ ~ 'CK ~i~ b~~4°' i~ F c~` rt ~~ ~'h~i-'!,~3 "r~~~ a !
M q.
_a.
r-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 70 of 84
`~ And in our narrative, where we have the -- where we have the alley loaded product, we
~,~: had requested that the setback on the alley loaded product be allowed to be five feet.
Very much in keeping with the TNR zone, but also keeping with an alley-loaded product.
`,;v In the R-15 zone that setback is 12 feet and so by the time you do a 20-foot alley and
two 12-foot setbacks, you're really making this alley load more like a regularly street
r~' section and it's inappropriate for this product type. So, we would request that in the
record in the alley loaded product area specific, that we be allowed a five foot setback
from the alley. If we could have the next slide. My eyes are fuzzy and I think it might
just be because my contacts are cemented in and a little bit unclear, but what we --
~~ what we want to show in these images is that this is Overland along here and this is the
one and a half story, if you will, residential -- or retail product and as you come down the
~``"_ main -- the main street into the development you have -- you have the -- what I'm calling
the one and a half story retail and, then, you have the two to five story office buildings
and, then, you go back down to the lower product on the sides. And it would be our
intent that the design of this area be mirrored or picked up in some of the elements
along -- along the street front. So, trying to create a cohesive design, also having the
~~
~ opportunity to allow some national branding and things of that nature. So, kind of the
~~'~ mix of working within a good design guideline. The other thing is that, again, all
pedestrian access -- to come in, you would come in and come back in and park in these
areas. Again, trying to really focus on the pedestrian lane. We do show aright-in, right-
~'
~~ out in this area and in this area and we are confident that with the data and working with
~~
~'
,; our traffic engineers, that we can convince the highway district that it's a smart move.
_ And we think it's a smart move for the health of the development that if you -- if you can
get people in -- in this area here, you take some of the load off of this intersection and
you can also get people in this general area, so that the service to the units doesn't
"~''` necessarily have to bring you all the way back into the site. So, we will work closely
`'" with the highway district on that. The imagery here is this is looking onto the corner of
the -- of the intersection at Overland and our main north-south access road. And, again,
kind of pedestrian areas between the building, definition of corner elements to design
and call out the retail components. Street trees. Dave Koga will talk a bit about that
,~ and our landscaping plan. And, then, some articulation in the buildings and trying to
create a place, a sense of place and imagery, so that as you go through there is a
cohesive thread. I'll use that boring word many times, but -- the next slide. The image
up here is just progressing further down in the site. You can see between these
,~.
''"`
~ buildings here and coming across, really, is a pedestrian access point that connects the
~
~"' west side and the east side. So, you're not literally pulling in and parking there, but you
~~~ have the ability to walk through. And, then, as you progress further south, you get to
"~r,~
~. . ~ the areas where the two to five sto buildin s office -- rofessional office buildin s are.
ry 9 p 9
If you can go to the next slide, please.
" ;~E~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
-._~y~ Rohm: Yes.
`r~=i Newton-Huckabay: I think we need to move this along.
.~_,~~
r
-_,
,,
i p,4 ~,
r,. 4
?y, ,..`.~.~.
_~
t 1~~
,' '' ~*,i
M1
+~x .f ~'
~~Nr"~ ~ Y
~ 4 ,1~
~.
~ t y~
~ ~ rt ,
:~ ~
o'er
Soh:
S~. ~Y t ',
,J,`~
3 i'.2 '-,
v ~';
is t
-,n
N ~: ~ ~SSy
,eaE'~, a~ `''.~F
.;,x~ i r:-~ b
~. 'M~ '~"
w^ <~C
s, ~?,,
~,; , r
?, ~
Yr~
~ ~, ~ P$$$$7
k E a~!.S~M'iiri ~r
~ ~
ra~~ r
r ,:,i,,,r ....~
~~k ~h
f4l
t ~
'~ K i~ t
E ~1r ~
t ..t .". .'71
i ~ki~~~i ~ ~77 `~l
[~ Y
4 ,.
.~..f~ ~ ' '~T,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 71 of 84
_°;.
~, .,
~:~1
~rbfp
~.:s~,y
~;,
~;
,:
;~1
Erstad: Okay. That's fine.
Newton-Huckabay: We have public testimony and it's 11:10.
Erstad: Then, to wrap up, again, the elements, the material we are looking at, the
modulation, this is looking to the north from the project, so that you have the courtyard,
the motor courts, the alley-loads, the condos, and the row houses. And, then, with that
will turn it over -- that's how quick it is. I'll turn it over to Mr. Koga.
Koga: David Koga with the Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I will try
to be brief on this. In regard to landscape, some of the key elements -- requirements for
this project is we are providing the 35-foot landscape buffer along Overland Road. It is
required. But we are also providing some additional elements on this project, which we
think is very important in regard to the pedestrian circulation. Along on the west side
from the future Kiwanis park to the north we are providing a 40-foot wide landscape
buffer between the high school parking lot and the residential area. Our intent here is
pedestrian only goes up to this area, where are pedestrian -- the residential areas and,
then, bring that directly to the east and more in the central area where we do have a
very extensive pedestrian system in there. Your staff recommendation had asked that
we extend this 40 foot area not only along the residential area, but to the back side of
the -- the retail commercial area, which we don't feel that is the best way to put together
the pathway system. On the south side we also have a 15-foot buffer between the
residential area and the park. We have -- you can see a better shot right here of the
width difference, the narrow to the Ridenbaugh Canal and the residential area. Also,
one thing about the Kiwanis park, we have extended aportion -- a little over an acre as
part of the Kiwanis park to be able to bring pedestrians from the residential area into
Kiwanis park, to extend the park also and also that the residential -- or the developers,
excuse me, will participate and have already met with Meridian Parks Department for
greening up the park. Along at the main -- our intent at the entrance to the retail is to
provide a very lively streetscape -- urban streetscape at the -- for the pedestrian, so we
not only have a vehicle circulation, but a strong pedestrian circulation, along the
boulevard area and also internal pedestrian areas behind the buildings. As we go
further or deeper into the south by the office space, these buildings could be up two to
four stories high. We do think it's very critical that we design same type of courtyard
area, plaza areas, to bring a human scale, benches things like that for the -- the people
working in the office buildings. And last when we get to the residential area, we are
providing somewhat of an active part at the first vision when you come into the
residential area is you will have a park. One of our concepts is we will have an
interactive water feature in there, a large lawn area where the kids could practice soccer
and things like that. As we go more to the south we have a smaller park, another park
for the residential area and this would be more of a passive park, more benches,
pathways, and things like that for the residential. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Yes.
{{~~~},~ ,~
1t I h
q~ .;.. 4 r . v 4~
~`7
r s ~;S
,~ r
a ~? ~ ~%_
~tt{Tf k
. ~ Y .. i. ~ '_::
y,
J ~
~ °..
~y syi~ $ w r 4".`?
~H l:C:'t ~ ~.,'4,
u:
i~%
r +~ y ~ ,
~~~~.
S 7:.
'; u o- ~i ~e1'~
i
~^ ,s. r -
~~~
,~~ .",~
,~,
r
A e,l?''Y~'4 t ht:
sf` h'M T S' ~ - -
~~~';~
J
`~ ~.
~ 4_ }
}~
ri3. ) ~~ f~
~ ~'l
f~f't}#~, S~~n,~
r
r
1 ,< <~ ..
h~' , ,1. ~a f'
s~ ~ j k~
~~S x~-
N y
~ 1~~ .
~~~~.
~a Y yam'
V
~~~~~ ~,'
'~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
- May 4, 2006
~`~~ Page 72 of 84
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have two, if I may. Because of the tag team I'm not sure
who is going to answer it, but I'll present the questions and we will see who answers it.
~~ One of them is on the discussion about whether the private road should be designated
'~ ~~ in the spots where staff has asked. Thank you. The subject, actually, I believe, is
'=~ generated by both the police department and the fire department and the ultimate
''~~ question is if these lots don't front a named road, whether it's public or private, how are
°"=~ they addressed so that the emergency services can find them easily.
`"'~ McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we faced that before out at
:~__ Bridgetower where we had a private drive that ran along the rear of office lots. What we
F,. ~ ended up working out with the fire department was we -- we set some monuments
~:, ." where that cross-access takes place and the addresses -- everybody would be
'~ "~~ addressed, obviously, off of the public streets, but that monument sign would have a list
~~
of the addresses clearly shown on each building and who was in there. So, if they did
~ ~~ have a call for say a fire for business ABC, they would know as they come in, based on
F, the monument signs, that that s ABC. And that was the system that we came up with at
Bridgetower. I mean this is not something unique with office complex or a retail
s.;=~ complex, where you have a driveway access or interconnectivity between parking and
i~ ~„, drive aisles. So, I guess we'd like to work it out with the fire and police department, if at
"~ ~~~ all possible.
~" Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. The other question is on the alley-loaded products and a
,.Aji~~
five foot setback from the alley. There has -- there has been discussion and staff
-~~~ maybe chime in. I don't remember what the results of the discussion were. Five feet
sticks in my mind as -- the problem or the issue with it was it's too small an area for
somebody to park 90 degrees from their garage door. It's also too small for somebody
ti ~~' to park parallel to their garage door, but it's very tempting do so. If you have a nine foot
A:4 wide car, they probably would try and idle up to their garage car door and now they are
``~~~= hanging four foot into the alley. If somebody does that on both sides, you can't get a fire
`'~ b truck through it. And I don't remember how the discussion came out, but it seemed to
.` me the recommendation was either to have no setback, so that you don't attract
"'~` anybody parking there, or to have at least 12 or 20 feet of setback and staff appears to
,~
be ready to express an opinion on that.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there are a couple different standards for
different zones and I don't want to go into -- we recently -- I think it was Tuesday night
'~ we got the TRN standards -- TNC standards, excuse me, adopted by the City Council.
'`~` The R-15 zone, one -- you run into a couple of problems. One, we require a 20-by-20
-s;,'
pad for each dwelling unit, too. So, then, where does the pad go. Emergency services
' , k~.f
also has a problem with that five foot setback to the garage. The fire department has
~~: drawn diagrams that I have seen before about how their ladders come out and if there is
`~ something that -- you know, swinging the ladder out and, then, putting it down and all
kinds of things. But, anyways, the fact of the matter is that the R-15 zone does have a
12 foot setback in the rear and also on the alleys there is a greater setback and if they
wanted to go down to five it would require a variance. Their application does state that
F ^
•~
'
ti,3!'
~ '~
'?'
I ~ . :61 I ti H
""
{'
- :a4
~
~,' M. ~ ~ i - ~3>tiiy '"c?:•
'-
'~': ~K., r:d ~ 1'?y~„ "i.
` ~,~ i3:R
W..
~w'~','-. ~1*
~
•t'
~ • i
~ f
~ S
~n
~
_+~., ~: •~ ~
~ i' i i z~`' 1 .
r
Y
`f
~"
'
n
I
,
,
" .
~
~
`Z,t ~3
~. m f•.~... ;e>'t{t~ + ` ~~ ~I, v 1 ~' '
' ~_d" A1. Fa 'ti.
!`
'
? I
:
~ ..
1
I
~,
:•p'y
;~1 r
C
~ 5~ ~
i~ ~ I
»
^
.; I
~ ~ ~
- ~
I. .
- 4 F
,
if
- i
t
:
i
I
. [
.
^
e
~~cy-
P r' a .:Y, y • ~ C J ~ x • r ~ i I .;( rr ='t.N" ~~. r l :` riv'i
' .
•i . .v ~ • ~.
; j
l •.
;~4.
3
ie ~ I ~ ^
^,
.
rY
I I
.J... ~. { ( ~
,~
II i {'.:. ', ~ rat ~ -
,
r , 'I ~ ~ I ak
I
Y : p
1
, '
'Y'.'
:
'~''
'
F
*'t
I rF
e
.
f..
c
+tt a
.•
•
`
M ~ ,
a2
. , :4 N 1~ I I
~ ~
:.:
r
I ^
s
,
~
,.
,~ : -
,,. :.
I ,
:
.~;•
:
:
~ ~~:
c
i
(
•
'
`
L
~.M. LO
. 5~`~,
r~. } I~
: r' ~ ~;~t
• gg S' 1 ... ..
-f }... . ~
! ~ u.'.'v"#~i'~ S^~.
I I t ,~ } 4 f~ ~
n~
N
.i~~,-iv i4U ~t:Rt K^.2 _
:} ~I
3
a
r .
• .. .
... ,
_
l
-M
~'
i
.
;
~ . r'
:i':
. r
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 73 of 84
in the application, that they are requesting this, but the correct mechanism to get that
five foot is a variance. A planned development would be the other one. This is not a
planned development or at least one was not applied for. I don't know if I should go into
it anymore, but -- and legal counsel may have to help out a little bit, but you can't
approve a modification to a development standard without a -- a variance is the correct
mechanism. Again, the planned development -- it used to be back in the day that a
planned development you could ask for and there were -- basically, all development
standards were up for grabs, if you provided certain amenities. This is not that. This is
just an annexation and a preliminary plat. So, we can sure talk with the applicant about
that, if that's the type of building that they are trying to construct, we can assure -- I have
discussed that with him, but it would be a separate item that would have to be approved
by the City Council.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Prior to public testimony I am kind of curious. On your elevations
do you have something to show us -- show us something in regards to the R-15 on the
south side, as far as any use from farther south looking north to the R-15?
Erstad: If we could go back to the image slide with the various products on it. So, one
more, please. The difficulty in viewing these slides is just the clarity. The product in the
lower right-hand corner is a quad product and that's the product that would be along the
'' ~~ south property line and the image of the house just directly above it is -- is one of the
houses that would be in that quad product. And up on the top -- so, this is -- this is
indicating what that quad product looks like with the motor court and this is more of a
._r
'~~'` direct straight-on image and, then, this kind of gives you an aerial view of what that
~~~~i
~~j, quad product looks like. Two stories. Separation between each of the units. Variation
~~E~~
. in roof forms, heights, and everything and I made the comment that staffs -- staffs
-- report was very accurate and we felt that with these images that we meet the intent and
~~''~~`~'~I will further those design guidelines.
-,
-:; Moe: And as far as your elevation changed as far as that grade, do you have any idea
,~~ ~i, how much you're looking to cut?
a:
x; a Erstad: The honest answer is we don't know exactly how much we are going to cut.
There will be a cut, though.
Moe: Thank you very much.
~~`;'~ Erstad: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Ralph Ingle.
,,I,~ Ingle: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Ralph Ingle, I live at 2638 East Green
Canyon Drive. Obviously, my property backs up to this. I will lose one hundred percent
of my view and probably one hundred percent of my privacy. When we moved there six
~,~
_,,
r
Y ~.
~~'~~ r :~~, Ski
~ ~i~` r
~ x~i,~G i Y~ ~
t-
ro c:;~;
;~~ r:
~:. ~
Y ~
x ~: .~
~~~~~
`~,y • 'i~ ~ , ,.:. -gam
.~a~
e yYYµ-fir tk:5~~kA
~ ~
rt" f L~
3 ~~ ?~'
fir
s `;
~ ~~
,' ti
fi H
` ~°f7 i
~`r~~F~1Y3` C ~Y#
~ Y;
+~ i
S, ~
y•~ 1 ±-
V ~ -J
T r {~ 5
~`~., ~•
1_
~C
fy'E ti` ~~
~~ ~ .
~S y~•'~Fy ~~ r ;
?. ~., e
~ KrfCYk ~ ,p ~
~ ~~'~ Y
~~
F~
~
• • •
~
; Meridian Planning & Zoning
M
4
2006
. ay
,
~~~+`~ . Page 74 of 84
-~ ~ years ago we were told that that was zoned commercial, so we were thinking, okay,
"~-~"
k there will probably be -- as far back as it is, it will probably be doctors' offices and other
~~
r
~ nonretail establishments that far back. So, in the evening and weekends probably
s
r
~' nobody would be there and that was acceptable to us. The other alternative, we
:,~ thought, well, maybe it will be rezoned residential and there will be single family homes
there. With this, we -- I live in a single family home and I will be looking out my back
~:'~ door to two stories all the way across and on the wings they will be three stories. And
so I will be pretty much living in a canyon. With all due respect to the engineers and
y'` architects, I live there, I went to their meeting, I went and found the lot lines, I did the
~5~` measurements to the back of that development and I can hit -- I can hit the wall with a
rock from my backyard. So, there isn't this big, huge, gigantic buffer that they are trying
to portray. What I would like to see, if this development is approved, an eight foot
~'~# privacy fence, vinyl, no windows on the south side, preferably single level, and I would
F,
'• also like to see landscaping that would not attract residents to that back area, because if
..
'
I lived in one of those places, the back area is where I would want to go. I wouldn't want
to go out front where there is noise and traffic and people coming in and out all the time,
~~; because there is going to be a lot of people living there and I would want to go to the
back area, which is going to, like I said, totally destroy my privacy. So, if that could be
landscaped in such a way that people will not collect back there, that would probably
help me out. So, anyway, I'm against the development, but I'm not going to stand here
and think that little old me is going to shut this thing down. I just appreciate the time and
'~~ I can answer any questions if you would like.
~~ Moe: Sir, do you have any fencing in the back of your house now?
Ingle: I have wrought iron fence, which is open. That's all the way around our
subdivision. It's a five foot high fence and we have ducks and geese back there and
,_,-;~ feed them and there was some kids back there last week, they were starting to hang out
``~"• back there and, then, they started shooting paint ball guns at the ducks and geese and
;`mot ~ anybody who thinks that kids aren't going to hang out back there, I will challenge them
on that all day long, because that's going to happen.
>..
,:,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingle, I don't need an exact number, but the applicant has
I I mentioned regrading it, taking, apparently, some of the dirt from the south end of their
.~~
'-s~~< property, moving it north, which would lower the south end of the property. Do you have
,:; I a ballpark figure? Is there currently a grade difference between your property and the --
~;..j
~~=~ Ingle: Well, actually, there is. They happened to mention that their grade was lower
;,~, than mine. It's not. It's above my grade. And if you don't believe me, you're welcome
~~ ~ to come and stand in my backyard, because that grade is above my grade. The top of
" the canal bank across from my fence is probably four feet high and on my side it's two
• feet high. And, then, where the ditch rider drives his truck, I mean it's flat all the way out
and the grade doesn't drop until probably three or four hundred yards north into the
` ~ field, then, it starts dropping down. But that grade is currently above my grade.
'; `-~; .
"` Zaremba: Thank you.
' ~; ,.
-.i r y ~~
scj .
`~
,
F' ~
~`3 1 .F
~
~ ~
} .xk . ,~ .;-e,'~•; ,yam'"
+~
.~.L ',
3H" ~j Ln 3 "
~' t
.
`l
,
A I
I
i
~
:~ ~
I
a
,
.
U
• ? ~
. ~ ..
~
: ~ I
;~
~
I~f ~ ~
~ ~ `;
i~"`• ~
~` ~ 1 i ~
. a ~ } c'~~~ R° x ~'~5'~~i' '
i
x
'
~'s fia,
~
. s
. ~
..3!
~
j
,6%-'~:~. •g .J> a..
K F ~ I f
x
y
! ~ ~ I t.~ F'1~' I , r.. ~. s,. y>? . ;yd;" ~
~~~.i{,:
;L r
~ A 1 ~ I i .. ~.n ~~ hn~
,F4 s a
{ rVR~
t~ *.* •
t ~ i::'< I I 1. ii ` ` :~~, t '4
.>c
-;
-
~
,~,.
~ :* S
i
,~~ ~4l ~
, ,
l
:I 1' ~ . ,
e
~.F
k I 'S ~:
,i
:
I ,
~
!' I
.
'
~
~
i
ti•
s
I.
" ..~
. Tti
r
r 4.
'b
.. :~ i
IJ I
r
~
'
j
l
'
~ )
~
~
I
~
~'
~
~ .•t
yV .t:
"~ ~ 1 t e .~ :~
a
ii 3 .~
;
r
1 ~t
,'
,~`a i`
.~
'tv
.v ?F-ri~
~ 14:. 1 V ~ J ~,~. ¢
(
,aR
~
,r~~ys~~
g
,
<
i
;4R.'
:4
~f'M:~'
' :
i
'„
I 2 ~
~'
a
.~§
J.l i ,
;
1
n . a+ 3 ~'. ~. , .~. 1 .
~~
y
~
`: ,
$, ,
,
.
„
~.
f
.'.t~
_
!~1,
~.~.: ~ ~, '~ y.. :`
• .
en z
'I ~.
,
d r,' `~ I I. ' i ,l i
ri
t
Y ~
3]'
~ ~ 4~~ ~
~ 9 ~y' S dj
~
~1'~1.~:~„Yl3fr'}'~.
y Y %.a P `~+'
~::,'•`
C x "/; '~
Y~
i
~
= .
~
,
y
I
.>
.
~ ., ~
fir. ~ ,, ;
i ';;•
: :~.,... • ~
~ ~'f«
~' ~ ~ ~ i. '~ ~ i li
'
~:'
•..
A
f
1 £.,
® s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
Page 75 of 84
Borup: You're saying, then, that the contour lines that the engineers prepared must be
wrong?
Ingle: Well, I don't know if they are wrong, but you're welcome to come and stand in my
backyard and look.
Borup: Okay.
Ingle: Because I think they are wrong. There is no way that grade is below my grade.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Dan Curtis.
Curtis: Chairman and Council Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk.
I reside at 2730 East Green Canyon, which is the southern border of the proposed
development. And, basically, what I am -- basically, what I am here for is just to -- not to
impede the progress. Obviously, they are going to do something there, but we want to
make it a good fit for the citizens or, you know, us that have been there. We have been
there since about 2000 when the subdivision was built. Obviously, we bought along that
rim and paid a premium for it. If you look at assessed values, the properties right
across from me are about 15 to 20 thousand dollars less in lot value than the ones on
the north side, but mainly what we are concerned about is that we -- you know, I don't
like the idea of having three story buildings when we are sitting at two stories and as
Ralph mentioned, you know, there is several houses along there that are single family.
And so if you put -- the way I understand it it's going to be two stories and, then, the
wings are going to three stories. Well, that's -- that's kind of ridiculous when we are a
bordering, you know, community, it's basically to make us look like a big old wall there
and I think that you as Commissioners should look at conformity and I think a two story
along that back is -- conforms to what the houses that are there is, would be my
recommendation. Also, it's mentioned that, you know, we'd like to have some type of a
privacy fence. And I think you could do some good things with landscaping, maybe put
a berm and, you know, do some things to help security and noise and those are other
issues that I'd like to have considered. Our neighbors to the east and EI Dorado I think
have done a really good job, they have worked with the landowners in Thousand
Springs on the east side there and it's all commercial and there hasn't been really much
of a problem. I think the big problem is the multi high density units and, you know, what
that impact would be on us as homeowners in Thousand Springs. But I really would like
to see some limit on two story and some real thought about how they are going to
border that along the canal and how they do privacy fence and also the landscaping
issues. And that's my two cents.
Rohm: Thank you.
Curtis: Thank you very much.
,; :;g
~. ,`
d .~,
~,~: 4
:j ~i ~
~1
I~,t
` i
5 ~u. "f ~ ~ ~~~~~
# ~~~
~~ ~ ~~~
:r
hq~t rK `~t L3
~~
~2 .;~
1 ti c.
Ka .~'~ a ~•1_. ~ ,~
1 ~~ '- ~~
~ ~'
~ v ~' er I,~
~k 'n I ~, ~~ ~ ki`.
~~. ~.
n :`xf' ~ :'~~
~~' t '~ t
1
~r~ ~~ ^'t
y ~.
k{ [.
f (_;
S
4,r -t'n~~ x~~'~
~ `~
. ~ t
~d i,_.. r~ . k-y~~
.a
!' w
~ '^ x
~ " '
~: ,.
~!
r;i
~:~~;
s' `.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
!.;:~~ Page 76 of 84
`. ~ Rohm: That is all that has signed up for this hearing. Is there anybody else from the --
c`r~, please come forward.
_ Fern: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Gloria Fern and I live at 2660 East
'~~4 Green Canyon Drive. I am directly south of the project and just wanted, you know, to
`: ~~~ give you some of my concerns here. We moved -- my husband and I, Richard, moved
~~`.~p to Thousand Springs so we could enjoy a great quality of life
privacy
and wildlife along
_ ,
,
the canal behind our home and the beautiful views of the Boise foothills and Squaw
_'"~ Butte Mountain. We bought a rim view lot and built a custom home, which we paid a
°-*~~ premium for, so we could experience homeownership in a nice community. We have
concerns over the proposed high density Kenai Development. The first concern is our
~~ privacy. We are concerned with people looking down in our backyard and house from
r the row houses that will be there, the two to two and a half story houses. And also the
,
~_~ condominiums which will be two and a half to three stories along the south side of the
}~~
;,
y~
development. This will be like a wall of houses that will shield my view. We are also
.
,
"`~~~ ; concerned about the foot traffic that will gather along the greenbelt that will take away
our privacy. We would like to see an eight foot, no maintenance, privacy fence put up to
protect our privacy. The second issue is our view. The height of the commercial
buildings, two to five stories, we -- which will be two to five stories, we understand that
`~ progress should happen. One to three stories is what this area is building. Higher than
k three stories will create an obstruction of the Boise foothills and Squaw Butte, which I
_ see from my floor to ceiling windows and my backyard. We built this house to enjoy the
views. The third thing is security. The eight foot privacy fence has to come between
the greenbelt and our property. Today we encountered a security issue with teenagers
.' building a paint ball zone, which you could see from my -- all across my house, alb the
back side, plus just looking out my master bedroom, there it was and all these kids. So,
I mean it's really a concern. So, the teenagers built a paint ball zone with logs that
Kiwanis left next to the canal a year ago to use for the development of the Kiwanis, City
of Meridian park next to the Kenai development. It is impossible to get any return phone
calls from Kiwanis, which I left about four or five messages when this paint ball zone
was, you know, active. It is important that we have the proper security issues
"~~ addressed from the very beginning. Another issue has been kids shooting at the ducks
' and the geese. The fourth issue is noise, traffic from the cars that will be entering and
-n
exiting the south area of the Kenai development. The next issue is the greenbelt.
_ Landscaping. We would like to see pine trees along the greenbelt, because they are
green all year and they do not lose their leafs. And we also talked about the no
~:. maintenance privacy fence. Another issue is lighting. We don't want intrusive lighting
~~~~~ that will glare through our windows into our house and yard. The next issue, which is a
~' `~~ very important issue, is our house value. We bought a rim view lot and built a custom
~ home, which we paid a premium for, and we don't want to see such a high density
project with a wall of row houses and condominiums. This will be our view from my yard
and the view windows across the back of my house. Since the closest part of the
r;-'' development to our house will be row houses and condominiums two to three stories
`' high, it would be to our best interest to have commercial offices there instead, to match
`'~~ the existing EI Dorado development along the canal to the east of Kenai Development.
,~
~~ ,~
~~ ~f
*r,
'= r ~~~+.
N i
~~
f i~ x
~jI rYly,f Il'~'~ ~'~
u
it
e ~
' '^ ~ .j
,:._
~ it ~~
:: r
„r. ~ t: ~~
Y
~i jt^,y~ ~K s~ fr..
~~,r. _ ~
'~T 1 J ~7~y~~.
~.~ y .
b
vy ~;~.
~`;~ s~
~~,,.
L.N
i. 1
3-i ~~N~B~ ~ ~
~ 4 <
~~ „~," st ~ f „...~
~` {~~
}~ ~
1
y_ }~
UK~, 1,.
+C
~ ~>
`t ~ f~
~ A~y,
~ ~ •
ky Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
`~~"''~ ~ Page 77 of 84
~_,
~t
The commercial buildings are one story. EI Dorado planned this so that the
homeowners in Thousand Springs that backed up to their development, could retain
~- their privacy and view. Many of the commercial buildings are not occupied during the
' `<x weekend. Please consider our concerns, so that we can protect and enjoy our home
-~'. ~ and quality of life in Thousand Springs Subdivision. And one other thing that I did think
~'~_ of was what method would be used for keeping down the dust and the dirt while they
~~:~ are going to be developing, because I mean that's where we live and I mean if we open
~,~,
~° up a window all the dust is going to be flying in my whole house and, you know, it's part
a:~ of living and also the -- you know, allergy thing. And, then, the privacy again is -- you
know, one thing to consider is no windows on the south side of these houses that they
are proposing to put along as that wall right behind my house. So, thank you very much
-s
for considering this.
Rohm: Thank you.
Fern: Any questions?
Rohm: Any questions?
Borup: I have got one. Several of you have mentioned about the kids and how they are
~~: paint balling. Did any of your -- anyone in your neighborhood go down there and talk to
~,'' -- talk to the kids and see where they lived and what they were doing?
Fern: My husband talked with the kids early on when they started raking things and
bringing their shovels and bringing their wheelbarrows and moving, you know, a lot of --
~~
Y. ~~
:.s
:'
. ~~1,
~,
,,.
,~..
~`I
~3 ~:i:
Borup: So, I assume they were all kids that lived in Thousand Springs?
Fern: You know, they were good kids, they -- I don't think they were going to do
anything bad. I mean, you know, they were having fun. But we didn't know what this
was going to lead into and he did ask them what they were doing and they said that
they were building a clubhouse. That was before they showed up with -- you know.
Borup: That -- I just wanted to know if someone had talked to them.
Fern: Yes. Someone talked to them and also the police was also talked to and --
Borup: Thank you.
Fern: Yeah. Thanks.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay.
Seeing none.
T,
a., ',~ "3
Yy J ~ ~ i ^'~' t
/~^ r
»~a 5th ~~,:
U j ~,
g v 'r'~~l
=«
{i _,
Y X
t r ~~ ~ ?
w,
v."
~_:: ,_
n~k~
ti#
t
i;
~ r ~ ~~ _4
c~:~~
7 .'~:
~ 1 .'
s,:
r , i .,.j~
ar ,~
~,~., ,~`
ii :%
~.
~~
r }i t
"x}: f
~' 1 '!~
A ~'.ih~'i~ • L
p ~,ti''~'~tr4 w~l~~
~ ~ ., ra. :''`J
~ ; h;x '~.
~:-
~t '' i
~ .~~
z ~
v ' _ .t
~" ~ ' d~
~ F ~
,~t i c~v~n;1k'` Y~tt
~ /' .~~
;<~,
- ,.x;r
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
'''=; Page 78 of 84
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would just comment for the record that we also have a letter
from Scott and Roshell Hurshley, who express similar sentiments to those expressed by
the Ingles and the Ferns.
°°`~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up?
:=~~ McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'll try to address some of
_,
:_`x; the concerns and questions as best as possible. As Mr. Erstad indicated, this property
°~ l does have a considerable amount of elevation. There is approximately 16 to 17 feet of
"`` fall as we go from our southern boundary down to Overland Road. To demonstrate
-~'
f~ that, I'd like to submit this topographic map, which, as you can see, delineates the slope
on this property. This being the south boundary and as you can see each one of these
contours is jumping one foot and so it starts sloping at a considerable rate and, then, it
kind of starts flattening out as it heads toward Overland. So, it does have a
,~-
~~~-~~ considerable amount of fall.
r. Borup: That was one of the questions I had. So, you contend that the topographic
,.,. information we have on our plats is accurate and the same as what you have got there?
McKay: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yes, that's correct, that is a ground shot
i``' to o ra hic ma b Idaho Surve Grou I was also the tanner on Thousand S rin s.
P 9 P p Y Y P• p p 9
:~ I worked on that project for a couple of years. And I also did the plat for this property,
- Resolution Park, and worked with the school district to split that off for Mountain View
~~: High School. So, I'm pretty familiar with the topography out there and that Ridenbaugh
'~'~ Canal is running right along that high point right through here. And these lots are quite
;~,~;ti: visible for a considerable distance, because they are elevated up there. As far as, you
know, the privacy being compromised and so forth due to the pathway -- in your
Comprehensive Plan this is designated as a multi-use pathway along Over -- or along
~.'~ the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, leading to Kiwanis park. It also shows anorth-south
_~~. connection of the multi-use pathway, so that that pathway has been designated for a
long time. The units that we are proposing here are those auto court units. They are
~~-~"' two story in height. They are also detached. They are the lowest density, based on
'''`~' what the architect has indicated to me is along this southern perimeter, which we felt
a~~ would be a better transition than say putting condos or something that was considerably
larger in bulk and height.
Borup: Could you clarify that again? Two stories you said?
McKay: Yes. These are --
Borup: And there was testimony on three stories being along that south boundary and
~~` was not aware of that in the initial presentation.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the three stories were the condo units
` ~ and it was proposed right here and, then, they had these blue areas here. As far as a
specific design, they did not have a design, that's why the staff has asked that we come
s
~: ~>~
~~
<S~
3
r~~ --:.
( ,c
~f ~i; G4Yq ~:4~..
lr ~i3
~~ P,.
~fr -' S -~:...
1 :r5 ~ l ~~
t t ~;.-„ ,,,,;~. 15yG,
f ? Ty~~T
~ ~'
t t
ti
.. t :fV:
a ~` '' {
~ti~
~.1 ~,~. ,
~~ '
~~,~
y 'v4 ~
'ACiw -`"y~"
s:i
i ,,. ~:r
~ ~ ~ f,`
~ ~~
~4 .
x
$:~ ,.
,~
rc'x ~~-~
' i`'k'~~~ s'?
Y
.ir -., 4~ A ~~ ,~ `1
~ i i
.. ..:: J,
,~{ _ r,
~y it
A h E•
~ ~ ~~ ~
~~
,.
~~~_,
~, , .:
'>1'.
3;
~~..~. [yak.
f~,', A ~ Y
't%f'~S '~1+.~py~s
y C' NJ a`
if-. ~~f
~_
.?
{[
~~ ~~:~
~~
,~:~~ ~ e
Ham,.' Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 4, 2006
'',~,
Page 79 of 84
~~> back with a conditional use for that multi-family product. So, the Commission would,
,~ obviously, be able to review the style and bulk and height and so forth. But these are
"4 single family detached units. They have a shared driveway, so you come into what they
~' call a little auto court and, then, you go off on into your separate garages. As far as
fencing along this perimeter, you know, typically we see a six foot fence. I usually try to
work with the neighbors, to the best of my ability, and, obviously, based on what the
developer is willing to do as far as coming up with appropriate fencing. But they,
~
'~ obviously, have the wrought iron there. We did that on Thousand Springs based on
_ Nampa-Meridian's input, if I recollect correctly. That's what they preferred. This will
change their view here. I mean when properties develop it does change the character.
But this is an enclave, as I indicated to you. It's developed all around us. EI Dorado
'~`~a here. Mountain View High School. That's about as big and bulky as you can get at the
high school and as you well know it sits up very elevated, which, therefore, accentuates
its bulk also. This particular property we have taken great effort to do a transition of the
intensity of the residential uses and the office and, then, obviously, the most intensive
uses are along that arterial of Overland Road. Lighting. We are required by the city to
''` provide lights. We use those shoe boxes, so that they don't get the glare on adjoining
_ properties. We don't feel that this is going to be a wall of houses -- of buildings here,
because they are detached and no windows along the south boundary. I don't think the
building code will allow that if they have a bedroom. You have to have the ability to get
-
~ out of a dwelling. So, I don't necessarily believe that is practical. And we have never
_
_ ~' been required to do such a thing ever. This is a really good project. We have spent a
lot of time and put a team together that we have spent I don't know how many hours of
.~
r r.,
committee meetings going through what we thought would work here. We didn't do a
a..~ planned development on this particular project, because it was Anna's recommendation
_ ~ ~ that we not, that this just be a straight subdivision with an R-15 and a C-G. Lastly, I just
want to note that we do want to take our pathway down the collector here, versus
~~~ running it all the way down the western boundary. And, secondly, I guess that private
~~~' road issue will -- I don't know if the Commission wants to make a recommendation on it
" or prefers that the Council make up their mind, but we don't think it's really necessary.
~.' ~~
Do you have any questions?
~:`~, :! Rohm: I have none.
~,:• Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
sr{
~~; Moe: In regards to the R-15 units with the auto court and such, are you, basically,
~ stating that they would be laid out to where you could, actually, probably, you would
'., have a view through the area there, basically, to the north, somewhat between
buildings?
McKay: We have a -- we have submitted a diagram to the staff showing how -- what
} those auto court buildings had looked like with Commissioner Moe --
~:;
-.
Moe: Yeah, I would like to see that.
>.~
Y ~l`. `~
~. .+
~ ~ ~ _. -,
3
~ ''
~ ~ ~za r
}
~ C
~ i. T
t 2
n-~ ~
xi ,,'
L ~i 75
% F., .:.
~; 1L~ ~. a1
til~t ' i T 3 ::~ l;~
ti~
,~ ,,,:
~ kf
t ~ y s
~ + :.
~r{
y. s r _ '
"Z. r
~~
~ ~ ~
'~ ~^
: <s'.-ice' 11 i '=;'
~ Ly; t~h
~L ~
~p .
~.
~
L
_
~
~
L" f a
Yr.
: ~G
N n ,
Y
~ ~!. 1
r ~1~~ r
,_ ~.a
~ 'r,~~Y
"' Meridian Planning & Zoning
''~' May 4, 2006
` Page 80 of 84
J ,I'~~.
~~ ~ McKay: Would you like to see that, Commissioner Moe? I'd need to get it out of my file.
~~~ Moe: While you're doing that I'd just like to make one comment to one of the public
,_" comments in regard to dust and whatnot during construction and whatnot, that they be
`~} required to make sure that they did dust control throughout the course of construction
>;
':~y; on that project. That should not be a concern.
:~ ;
,:~:
:';~
,,;,;.
McKay: Commissioner Moe, we have submitted this with the application to demonstrate
to the staff how those auto courts work and, as you can see, they have -- there is -- this
is a 20 foot corridor in here. This would be the building envelope. And so they have a
common driveway coming in and, then, they go into their own private garages. But they
are all detached-type units. I have seen quite a few of these in other -- other cities.
They use them a lot, like in Hawaii, it's a very efficient residential type design. It also
creates -- okay. It also creates a little bit of a mini neighborhood within a neighborhood.
They are becoming quite popular. And if done correctly it looks good. I have seen
where they just in with -- with concrete. I have seen others where they come in with
stamped colored concrete and just -- it looks sharp.
Moe: Okay. I think you did say those are going to be two story units, so, basically, you
guys won't have any problems staying within the 40 foot height restriction for the A-15 in
area; correct?
McKay: Correct.
Moe: Okay. And depending upon how much we reduce the elevation in that area and it
may not be this bad, to the folks --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make acomment -- and I would like staff to correct me
if I'm wrong, but in regards to south facing windows on your buildings and eight foot
walls, if, in fact, the Ridenbaugh Canal is going to have a public multi-use pathway, at
request of the police department, I believe it is, the city ordinance actually is that a fence
can be no higher than four feet and that there must be windows on neighboring
buildings to have a view onto the public areas. So, I'm not sure that's anything you
could undo, even if you wanted to. Am I correct in that?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct as usual. I don't think we
have to correct you too many times, but we do allow a four foot -- a four foot solid. They
can do a four foot solid or a six foot open vision. So, there are those two options
adjacent to open space areas.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I had a question on the pathway. You said you prefer to bring it along the
residential and on the interior. I don't see where it's indicated on a plan and you're
,,~4 ~,
~~ '4~
T~Y` ,1,>- r n
;~Y` ,;.
xA,< '~
-c
t ~~; ~` s~
~,~
~r t~
~ '~?~ ~ i 7,'~" ,
~ ~~
~,
r~ ~~ Nom,
.7 ~.s1 z ±`~~`
..', h t,
u,~
ax
S" "t•
~u t.
.~ ~. -, ......,>ii
+> r.`. ~
} ~` ;a7
F4', ~ ~~.~~.
~L~ f
~. ~F~H r ~r''Z
z~ r t _
f", ~. _,.
Y'~~ `
%`.
t ~^
o;~ it o„•a
r
~~
s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
,~ May 4, 2006
Page 81 of 84
saying that's what you would like to design as the plan is refined? Right now I don't see
a connection on the landscape plan or where the pathway connects to a sidewalk even.
McKay: It was our intent to obviously, take that pedestrian pathway into the project.
Borup: So, I assume you're saying ---
':.>t.
,; ;~ McKay: So, we have astrip --
~` Borup: Right there. And end right there. Yes.
~..,_,.
McKay: -- coming down to Kiwanis park. And, then, it was the intent that that not just
'
dead end there, but to pull it into the project and, then, pull it down along that corridor.
~
~_.
3 Borup: I just didn't -- it's not on the plans yet is what I'm saying, I don't believe.
_!'
~~~ ; McKay: You may be right. I don't have the landscape plan in front of me. It may not be
:
delineated clearly on the plan. Yes, sir.
=r~
~;,_- Borup: Thank you.
~;
:.:
Pr: ~~
McKay: Thank you.
~" ` Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky, I guess are you intending to -- I
'~ know you have done some other developments, too, where that's -- and I think we have
", talked about with another project and I can't remember which one it was now, but in lieu
>;,;`. of the sidewalk on that your internal street there, is that where the multi-use pathway
~ ~ would be is on one side of the street or the other, instead of the sidewalk or --
~.:~
;~-:
,.:.
~:~~
v
~~;
<~.
McKay: Yes, sir. We don't -- we don't duplicate the pathway with a sidewalk. We have
done it both ways. The Commission and the Council have approved like a six foot. We
have gone from ten to six foot concrete pathway if it's running adjoining a roadway. We
have also done where we just have ten foot on one side, no sidewalk on the other, but
wouldn't recommend that here, because we are, obviously, emphasizing pedestrian
interconnectivity. So, it would run on one side here.
Hood: Just to finish that thought, as mentioned by Commissioner Borup, I don't think
ACHD's evaluated that, so you may want to -- beings that it's just in draft form, Idon't --
if you're asking to put that in, you probably want to talk with Lori about having her
address that in the staff report as well. I don't see that it's here anyways. I went
through it pretty quick, but --
McKay: Yeah. The draft staff report, as Caleb indicated, we just received that today, so
we will make sure that ACRD is aware of that pathway going down along the roadway.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
;:
.. ; ~,
1~ i, s
o~ F ?'
~, ,,;
r.
R°'1 T ~,4
'~ ~.,
x, ,
I ~a ; `~~
~ 'i ~ L,~4p, P~ t_r
~ ~
~ ~Yb`~
} K
(~~ ,ter « F .I ~
3 S
F+ z,
i }~I ~.: j
~ t: L T
fi ~
r:
I ~ ~t~ ~ yP {'3{•
I c ts.. ~"
l~ ~l~~+r !'`:
t ~ M a 1
'~
~ ~ ~ r`~
r '= c
s ~ ~
t * i
ss f ~
a ~~~ s ~zf
f ~ ~~
r
~~.~- z R ~ ~~i~~ d r.
?` `~_
tea. _ c, . ' ~:;.
_ ~,~.,
f x~.{-
Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ •
May 4, 2006
Page 82 of 84
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Moe, do you --
Moe: Mr. Rohm, I believe we have reviewed everything and, quite frankly, Iwas -- I was
happy to see the project. I think they have done a real good job with the mix. I am a
little bit concerned -- a little bit to -- of the buildings to the south, but I feel a little bit
better after hearing the comments tonight, but I was very concerned it was going to be
one big wall to the north. I'm a little bit more relieved that that isn't really going to be the
case. And I'm very happy to hear that there is possibly an elevation reduction to take
care of some of the height in that as well. But overall I think it's a great development for
that area.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would mirror, basically, Commissioner Moe's words. I think that --
I thought the same thing as you when I read through the staff report that it was a solid
row of building along the south there, so I feel pretty comfortable with that and the
statements made earlier. We don't have a lot of this type of high quality, high density
housing in the area, particularly near the interstate in the south, so -- and I think it will be
good.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Yeah. I think my questions, concerns, have been addressed.
Rohm: Thank you. And Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: My comment would be that we consistently ask for interesting and unique
projects, instead of the same old cookie cutters and here is an interesting and unique
project. So, I'm -- along with complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent for
this area, I would encourage the applicant to regrade aggressively, let me put it that
way. I think that would also be helpful. But in going for a mix, not only a mix of uses,
but a mix of neighborhoods, I think this is a good plan.
v~'` Rohm: Thank you.
r~~
Zaremba: Two things we probably do still need to decide. Do we need to discuss
fi'F anymore of the five foot setback from the alleys and do we need to discuss anymore the
private roads, as opposed to driveways?
;;r~.
~'
'j Moe: As I understand the five of the alley, that's as a variance, so we don't need to deal
with that issue. I just made comment that the five foot alleys as discussed earlier, that
has to be done within a variance, so we do not have to deal with that issue. I am
curious about the pathway. Do we need to make a change in here or is it pretty well
~: .
~'
r ~ ,.
~:~
,r;t
~ }~
~h ~~~ ~~~
N.ti ~
'~; !`t _
~ ~
M > "a
"S v ~~
a ~'~`v4t *' '.
r~;i!~q f'ic"r
2 d
J ?7.3'1} -3. 1.~i_'t.
4 , a~
4
,:~- ~~ r
3 ,
3
~
fet
}
t t•:
y
P t
~ , tt
~t ~t~~~~ tS.~~
_ _ .. ~_
* +^'
t k N-.
~
-4 ~
:
,;.
,
t ~, ~ ~a'~ f, 3t
~`r y
xc
~ s.
x .+~
nr. a
F
~
~
y. }TFyyY r
~ ~~~ ~P __
'r f ~
~^i-n V_~.5.*~
~~.
"Y:i.
~
,~
r 1~. ~
f,F ~
t.
~~~,,
~; Meridian Planning & Zoning
,r May 4, 2006
Page 83 of 84
~~~ stated that they have to take care of it, they just need to put the location how they want
5
f> to do that? I'm just noting in under your site specifics where you have just got to create
a pathway connection.
=~~
:- ;;~. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, it's addressed there. If you want to be more
-~= specific about that, saying you're supportive of the pathway being on one side of
whatever the entry road, Kenai, in lieu of a sidewalk, you could sure add that language if
=`=~ you like. This allows a little more flexibility. It just says get it A to B, but if you want to
~:.=4{'S define B or A -- the point --
Moe: I'm fine with the way it is right there.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Before we proceed, I would comment on one typo that staff needs to be
aware of. In Exhibit D, Delta, on page three, the section is number two, preliminary plat
findings, the paragraph is D, Delta, and the sentence says: Please see Exhibit B,
Bravo, for comments and conditions and that is the exhibit that it's usually in, but in this
particular case those comments and conditions are in Exhibit C, Charlie. That's usual,
>~~ but that's where it is in this one.
Newton-Huckabay: You are the only person on earth who would find that at midnight,
for crying out loud.
~~ Moe: It's not midnight yet.
4 Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's close enough.
~x?
~~`;,~ Zaremba: I found it about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon and I have been waiting all day to
s ~ ~~, say that.
:~`;;~ Rohm: I'm pretty sure that change can be made.
~I
~:~.
~;: ~I Zaremba: Thank you.
`: S~fl
-`' ;~;
Rohm: With that, Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to make a motion?
~;~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and PP 06-
_;; . 019.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and
` PP 06-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
,r ,~L
,;: z~
~ `'' ~''
x ~~
t 1. ~ S^ r:
~~(~~~
j
i
~i ~!
MT ~~~'~°
$~n 5 x
t?'- ~ ~ S~
i ~~,
't ,`~
~~
.L
~ rv' J`
c'~`
~ ~ ~ i y~
.w2.:`.
i .~ tr ~
- - . tt
ti'
^ t~~.
c ~J«
}'ci ~ ,~'.'-
}7f?~'~ a ~ 4~}.
,~• b k >..~L~11
} ~~
Y
. f,
r{
_ E
11
J .y ..
( ~yy..~3
~'-'.
y~~ M'i
~M, 'fit + W ..'41 -'.^
.t~.,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
,`;,~,- May 4, 2006
Page 84 of 84
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~= Zaremba: The net result of the discussion is we are not changing anything in the staff
,a;
"'~ report; is that correct? Mr. Chairman?
.;~.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
~Y
'''` Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
~~~ recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019, as
4 ~>
~~~ presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 4, 2006, with no modifications.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
k Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
'' approval of AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date
of March 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
"'~. Rohm: One more motion.
'~ Zaremba: So moved.
Rohm: It's been moved to close the Public Hearing --
Zaremba: No. Adjourn.
Moe: Second.
=i:
Zaremba: I move we adjourn.
.4~ ~
'~ Rohm: All those in favor say aye.
::~_, ~
,; _~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
_~ Rohm: Let's go home.
~,{~
~:~,_,
~ ~~
i > s ~~
21 f7 ~= ~.r.
,,.
ypa.~ S t ~ .. ~
P l:- f t
i'T'4 ~ .. ~ .. _
~d
~Ii Ny;
f ' ;` ~
~ ^r y..
tst w T l ~~ r
~~ ~/ ~. ..
L~ r ~
\~ s
L w C
~jri ,~~ 'r1'k
kL, -N ~ {,$y"~
H4.
-. ~~~
St ~{.
G i'l ~ i
," k ~~ C.
E a1
~ ~:~ ~
') ~(~.
9 ~ r~
1
F ..,
~ •1
~7 ~ K
~ '; K .~,
~ -~ ~~ ,
.~;
~'2? a G ~
rev ~1*~b f t 5 a •;
a?` t ~
;`~;:~;
''-3 b:
s f ,':
-f
'~
_ :
„
~
~
~~, :
~
=
~j _~ `,
~y,`
-
~~
;~;~y
E:x P
~~ .'~
''~; ,
;:
,,,
P-",
« ~~
i?
f _ y^~
yN;
z4'
*~
~: ~.~
~`
~~:~,:: , ::~3
..., .A_
'Y~ktf`'',.'~
!i~"~~
~~'~
•
C~
;` -'` May 1, 2006
~r
~`! MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
;:.
~= ~ APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A
_~
:: 4
~` =~ REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning 8, Zoning Commission Meeting:
°s
~::~~ AGENCY
COMMENTS
;'
:,~~
CITY CLERK: Refer to minutes previously distributed
~.~
r` ~ CITY ENGINEER:
`'-~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
;F
'~ CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~
~'~ CITY FIRE DEPT:
_a,
r, ,~-
.' ~~` CITY BUILDING DEPT:
,~
`'~ri CITY WATER DEPT:
''~~ CITY SEWER DEPT:
. ,~
aS
"'~`~ CITY PARKS DEPT:
' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
~_, ~;` INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
"~'~' OTHER:
'" Contacted: Date: Phone:
S'~:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubOc meetings shall become property of the Clfy of Mertdlan.
a
~, _.
~w s
~~t ~ :
sn .u
;+
d~'~~ z; ~~,urw
. r,y
:-~ x~
+
2
'~ ~Y
~
~
(!(
~
f
k d
3
it «~C r~$
~,'f
f t C
fi W ins- wtS
phi 4 ', ~ 2
s..
.7Z
t
f ~yJ'~
h I
g ~ ~~
t e~.~
4 `
,~
+ t~$ar 'i~
b
»~ '
~W ~ ~
r `.
+.,..
a!
s j~
~
~'° ~Y ~~ ~ "f
3} ~ ~
~~ tie
tc ~k ~( H
;k
r T
i 4
i}' '~
~
°
,~
a
~
I4
_~[ ~-
l _
.
~.
~
F
;;
•
~~~~ May 1, 2006 CUP 06-010
:,
`' MERIDIAN PLANNING $~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
2;,ia, APPLICANT Mike Robnett ITEM NO. 3.B
REQUEST Findings: Request for Drive Through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry
~ Crossing Drive Through - 1760 West Cherry Lane
. A~
y~_
`' ~s,° AGENCY COMMENTS
„ ,1,~
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
' ~'' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings
5F..
;,,,,
' "` CITY ATTORNEY
!'~' ~, CITY POLICE DEPT:
>:~
`,` ~j~,, CITY FIRE DEPT:
'~`'`~ CITY BUILDING DEPT:
- CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOQL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments
-` ~,~`' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
..rr:,:
~.~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
j : OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
~-
'' ~' Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
,.
' Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meddlan.
r ri
}s
rc~ 7 ~ 1
~ ~'vY `H9~ +~
f X
~ t A
A+L
yl +t w~1 } ,•'~~
~~~yyqqt~ n ~~
7kS+' f'.' Q .F~Z 5
}ti t
xi]i :~
Y-- .. C
~~_ ye''.
fi
~W ? , '~~
r~:, a ;: ,;.r.
~4! ~q'~ '~ r,.);
4 3' . a ..
R, I:.
E
~s
~; -v. 3
~~~ $ ' ~~
~~ ~ ~~f~J ~ .f
~1f ~:~ ~ j ^~~/~
,may ] ~ n" }.~
~ y ~! r
+3`N m1i
~ ~.
1,
~~ ~a
~a ^1~9 .~ r ;~e^ M
t ~ ~ 4
b~* ~,Xtn "•1
~~
i:'' 2
~Cwi k
',9
~1 ~ '.
~ ~~
~~ _ ~.
F~,' ~~'., 'y M,
N ~
~3k. r~ ~.
~.;
~~,.
.:;_
', ~.~ May 1, 2006 RZ 06-001
~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
,`~' APPLICANT Dave Evans Construction ITEM NO. 4
9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Rezone of 5.40 acres from R$
to L-O (Limited Officej zone for Sundanpe Subdivision No. 5 -generally located on the
y northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
~-"
„.~;
f.'< AGENCY COMMENTS
"`
CITY CLERK: Refer to Previous Item Packet /See Attached AAlnutes ~. ~,_
>~ ~;
'~`-
" ~-~ CITY ENGINEER: ~'; r
3: j
# j
M~~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ,~,ti
~s
-
•'
CITY ATTORNEY ;~~
:%
~''
.:
CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~
,~~
~,
• ~~ ~
CITY FIRE DEPT: w, ~`
..: ,~ ~ ~
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
=
~;
~' ~
CITY WATER DEPT: „ : =:r~
~,,
=F
CITY SEWER DEPT:
~w
CITY PARKS DEPT: .~ ;:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~
~ °-
• .~
~:.
SANITARY SERVICES: ~:',;
"~s°
~:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~`<-
,i CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ,}s
j,
'
;
~
i ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~
?
' ~~~'
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~
'
~ ~~.
i _ ; ~.
IDAHO POWER: ~~.
~-~~
~'fi=
' INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: N~~
~
~
OTHER:
~:~ _ {
Contacted:
Date: Phone: ~- t`'
Emailed:
Staff Initials: ~`
~•~
Materials presented at pubNc meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. ~ ; ~ -. .
~~:.
ti:.
.L..M ~2§, ~Se
:5...11##
;,,, . L,~~'.
:..
y •~'i
~:.:
.n
:
.Y.
':sy:>. .xa R~
.. •~LL .: L~ t I,
6 , ~ ~ 3 ~ pp ...RRR
F T ~~+(i i ~ Q, 3c1~A~ne~.
i r.
,
~
'{
~'
4
~
~
Ip
~ K
-
,%~'
~
I
' 3
.(. ~
Rr$ i
.
°
~
i
i
~
~ s a
... ..
..1
_ ..
,.
.. ... .. Y ,
'I . x .
~„
}
"
` f :
• .,~
~
I
~
-
Y `; ~~
:~..ci .,, pass.
{~ 6
t ~ t ;
i ;,,• J;
, ;;,d
~ .~,'. v~
~
"'.~ m {.
.
YiY E'l
'
'
t
'
e
J
,'~ y
".1 ".R: h. !
~
Y ~ ~ ~ I
I ~ -
~'^.
.
N k f .
,.p
~.
~:
d.
° ~
.,::
' ,
J i
3 1 l
~~
~ r y'i ! 4 '
:
' n
k
° (
~
• ~e
.
{
RI
~
~
~Z'
`~
~
~
y
lam' l
'' ~R
A i
~1 I
~ ~ f h ~
]
r ~
~
~ ~ .
-x.
6R
l4
*
Y
K t p
e
JF R . ~
J .'~)t*•?
~
~~~
~
~
,.t> ' {
i
r:'
d~~`'
I
~M1 _
: >
`~ '. I k
{
~,i
. ~ 1
T~ 1 ? h
rx>j,. ,:
.. ~ "*r~. .Y y
:,-;°~ .~ "`•`r:
..!
>
I.."
a; ~-
s. ~, f ~+ ~ I. I ~ ~;~ f
~:.
: +, ~' 111 i t I I
~ 1
y r t ""JS:, ~' ~~,
- ,~.
:f .,v:.w
'~
. a s, na r
v {~ ~
• I i
1 ~
' .
it
r
Y
„ }},~,, ~~ ##
~
~ 13
1
I ,
k
i ~ , N~, ;~ `:`,,
~
,
'`
~ s~°"""ry `;
;•`~` `[, • }
~
~.
t
~,
~ : ti. ~ Y ~1
~~
~ ~InII ,:rt ~y x .~. ;_~~.:, .4
~
~
d
~
, :
3ti+~y~r ~'. "'~.N ~e
1{ 11f t
;
..
-
a
ji
I ~, Y'^. .i. ,
~.
y ~~ii
i ~1
'C" :p'~••x~•+ Y.l~i ~1•~ b
I 111 «( i .c y: y„},n
,,; r. `t ~,fi;>~~ r _ • ~ l ; , i I °,. ~'! ,~:~~;::;x'!• ,,-,-. fir.
.
t. ~:
•. ,,..fin ~~ ," ~ ~ I ~ I ;~ .~~~. ~'~.~;'?"'~ S°;':~ .~h>;
vC
~ N ~ I
~~ „
~
~ 1 ~
~ ( . ~ i I ~ ~
i ~ ,1.. , t 4
~
Z` I '
' ~ k9 i ~ i ~ :'.
I
~ I ~ ;, ;.} ~...~
a
'.
,-
..
.~;
p1;'.M li
~ ~I ~
~ .::.;ice ~
'f7~~•,
..
'~
'
I
i ..
t ~I ' ~,1~'-si ~~ 0 5 ~ I
.
~
~ ~
I~
r
Y
Z . 1
N
; ; v.
I ~ ~
.
..:t
y
I .)'~
4 ~ ~ ~~~ ...
' ~1. r : ~~ ~• 3 .'e
e
rg
i' ~A`1
~ ( 5
~.•'~" ;
~a r~t. ~ ~
~
~ ~ E ~ I' F
u
;~' +
Y ~ ~
~'
~
~ i,
~
` P. . •' ~
( ~
~ .
.t
,~c.~.+p ~ri
II :, : r
II
A I
~
"
.~
~ d! I I 7 .. ~,.
t ~i
tl
.!
I~ i.
+
~In ~1. Ii <:
t~; ,3
i „G
~4,'
'~~~ ~;~
~'i
i;~~;' 1 .
{,
,_
,,,
+
h .~
` ...
_<
I
• '
-..~ r 1.
r 1
1 _
~
Ki
I
{ Z
~
t ~
.. .ih ki( •'[ n.1~'
;'N:x ~~ ~ Y~''~.. t ,~
~~. • I }qq}q{{11
+ ,t~..t ~ ~•.. ~~. ]J
~ {yF ~ IIF ]
. .•. ~ t. ~.. ~,~t 1 1 5 ~
1
~,~~'
~ ~f4 R.~Y'
~ _ ': r ~ i.?~ fPr~t $i~ ~3 ~'~, ~~=..r 51 .. .. _
•
it i
",~
=?
`'
{
t
,. i~
May 1, 2006 PP O6-Ol 1
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Dave Evans Construction ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 12
commercial lots on 3.77 acres in the proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5
#NAME~
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: Refer to Previous Item Packet /See Minutes In AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of fhe City of Meridian.
Yf h !.
1 ~_
E~ .:~~i` r, 5~ ti`.~
{ ~ 5C'
r~. ~!
s,+
"r ++E
4~~~Y ~~ r _' ~~~
F
`1 1
11~ 4~1~ ~j;~ ..~
'w/y i ` e
Z~ L
S1{yl L A
ilfti~ 1 u`b M{ ~~'
R y 1
i r r" ~ ~
1 , ~yM~gy
(5 y. ~r
1! ~I 'j ~. ! '~
f -4;. ~ l;i;'
r d
~~
a `~ ~ ! e h ~ y ~'~.
s+ sw. : ~ a i ~r '
~,~
j
~P~~l f ~1
~t+ ~~3
!t~Ep( Y
1 f"3 ~ { ".
f '-
dF ~W. ~
'' k tF r ';i~fi
7-.~
iE4 ~~~'r ~ ~ .
b ~~~~
e (S(' {~ t
~SHS'{. 1.i~51^3Y y~y
1
~°4.~... i j,' ' 4
~„~ _ ~E
y; f;'
!~
~ "~` s
~ ii
~~. -3
~.
~.;.,
~;
~~~
h-, I~
I
.., its
..
',
~,
•
May l , 2006 CUP 06-011
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Dave Evans Construction ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Modify previous conditional use permit
for a Planned Development (CUP 01-026j by adding additional office lots, changing building &
parking layout 8~ allowing potential drive-thru sites for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 -NEC Ustick B~Meric
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~ ~~
•
.~ ,
~,
I~~ ., ~~
~~.,
~: ~,
E
~ ~
~
~+~
s:_z;,.
~`J - r, 4' ~ '--
,~. ~ ~t~
~%~"
~ .. ,,~
t:3~ „ter
~ ~ C T
3 ~ T i
:; ~ ~ ~
k~
~i~ - ~ ~.. ,.~.
5 i(1;
Z
~ ... ~ _
1 ~
i ~ ~ }..
1~ ~ ~
~.14 i. (.
1 tV~~ y
~~,, . t
k~~ v
;~ i ~dC
~~
"S~ +rr j
~t y,r, t ~ i,.`
Refer to Previous Item Packet /See AAinutes in AZ Packet
;;,
~,
a ~e
~,
a :>
,.
;"
E
-~~M
u A
.. d:2::
•
May l , 2006 AZ 06-018
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Incline Village, LLC ITEM NO. 7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 20.01
acres from Ada County RUT to R-4 Medium Low Density Residential zone for Incline
Village Subdivision -north of West Cherry Lane and west of Norfh Black Cat Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: Refer to Previous Item Packet /See Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~~~ ~ -~-~
1 ~ ~ '
~1 t ~ f +'
'~~ 7 y ~~
ti `1
s1~ i ~ Cw
i.-! r t .y
~~~
f~ ~ ~ ~
r r ° "~1
ill='`t 'ti' ,.
t
ii=~ ~:
~yyT 1;~
S ~t(~Y .1 3 ~~
7
~C'fh ~ ';: y. '+' a
t
r i'.
~~i v
~~ , =~
k i 7'
S~
~~ ~
r
1
t ~., ?1i
e YES
I ~.t ~
;~[ 1
F~i,{f~,2 ~,i,~N ~" k '~'c
:1.5 . .. :;hK~S
3
a~ ~~ ~;
t K~ ~
~ ,
~~
*J } •,
~N
1 ti
a
'.'. R... ... ~_... ~
.~ .
3'~j'i
~..
~~
~:
*_
{, .
~x.
~,~~
~;
~~ ~, '>~~
~;
~~~
:,°t
;_`.
~~
I~ '?.~
..<'.3
:;.: _~:~
`~#
_:.~~
w=~
f5
,~.
~> w,
;:~ ; w
1 ~j ~~.~:
r . ;a
~~rk:>
~~~'t:
s
0
May 1, 2006 PP O6-016
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Incline Village, LLC ITEM NO. $
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 64
single family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for Incline Village Subdivision -north of and west of North Black Cat Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: Refer to Previous Item Packet /See Minutes in AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
;':
~;
~~
n
~.:
~~: ;~;
;~;
~5
=~1
-~ I
'~;.
i
May 1, 2006 AZ 06-0 l 9
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 10.59
acres from Ada County RUT to R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision - 12585 West Ustick Rd
AGENCY COMMENTS
~~. ~~
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone: _
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~~
~~~ ~~
;~ ~ ~ ;.~
i ,
x
E~ ~~~
J,:i~ ~ . ~..,
~~~~+„„~''++''
-~1 A~..
~ ~k a~
I ~ fl!: ~ it
k ~~~4~~ ~"~~`
t
5 _ - J'
i L 7 ~k X'r~'t~ 'i ^1
,~
~i~', # '` ~~~
.~r,.
k..
tP`3~ ~:~c ~ ~'~ ~~
;?,
FP^^~~ C
~~~ ~ .} ,
'~ ~ ~~~
,~~ ~ .:
r
f; %1 ~~
~ 4 Tl f ~~
(~ Sjk {1a 9 }Th~f'
i
T
~7~~ 's;~
~~~~
t~
r
,,
-~~ ~~
~~ ;.
~ r=~ ~~
s`
p5 K;
~~ ~ ~q
~ .~
~ '~r .~~~
w ,~a"~'~ ` ~ti
r ' `i F •~ '
Refer to Previous Item Packet /See Attached AAinutes
...
'~` A~:~.
.,f~ •
/~~ •
May 1, 2006 PP 06-018
~~:
~:
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
x APPLICANT Gemstar Develo meat,
s p LLC ITEM NO. ~ Q
<: v° REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 42
~~ building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Southwick
Subdivision - 1255 West Ustick Road
~. ~, AGENCY COMMENTS
i
s "~' CITY CLERK: Refer to Previous Item Packet /See AAinutes in AZ Packet
~,.
CITY ENGINEER:
=:
. F, ,
<:~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
''~ CITY ATTORNEY
~~:,,
;:
c-~ CITY POLICE DEPT:
r ,:-
`" CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
. ;~
':~ CITY WATER DEPT:
~. ~~,
CITY SEWER DEPT:
~:,
..
-~` CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
,.. a
;,''r`~ IDAHO POWER:
„~~~i
R~..w! INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
i~~
;c ~,~a n x
c. F.
a~,i~
f.,
' r~
r:'".~ ~,
~~ ,
~'~ ~~.~.
~~z
3~' ~ { 'n•
Y
t
~~ 4~~y
1, y'I'
h?-
r ; ~.
ELF ~~ tt"-h
:t 1" ~ ., .R~1,j
u
F~
~~ f ~~
.r 'Aid
` 7`~
.1~` ;,k
,4.`ti ~t'.~~. ~
~ c ~ ~i
'~ ~'
^^~~ ~ r~
P_, .5
i:3
`i c a~
~;
r 3, ~
F..r: ~.y., ~R
S~V
~yy' Y
~~
'; :~~~±
1JJ
.n. I
•
•
May l ,2006 AZ 06-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 200b
APPLICANT C2B Developments, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 11.79
acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision -
675 and 715 Wells Street
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: Refer fo previous item packet /See attached RAinutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become properly of the Clty of Meddlan.
°~
,~ ,
air ~'~~
i; ~, d ,
~ ~:7Y F~ ,
~.t11!``TTy~
S.i C"~
'ice 31~~ ~. ~~. ~ ~~ ~X~
{F
;, C
~ i;i; tk
4.
~ 1- 1,
~~
y f'1 Y }~ ~'•'~
r+
~"
~ i-
t ,r
1 ~!'`r`N' f1C'.
~~i {.T f ' '?~:
+. ~!
~ rs:3 Y_,:~.
~ r i
t i F ,•~~
i.
f
~.,_~
? J~ r' :1~
~. ;" ~ f
~ ~,
k A~~y ~~:
J.~
c :; ,~~`r~lt
,f,t wpa4r Fir ~?`,W
.'. a .: d ,
l ,. q ?~.
/: ..
~~`~t
vK •
's ~}', May 1, 200b PP 06-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
~~'~ APPLICANT C2B Developments, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Z
REQUEST Continued Public Hearin from A rit 20 2
:~, 9 p 006: Preliminary Plat approval of 84
,,+,;~'` building lots and 14 common bts on 11.79 acres in proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street
:~ ~~ ' Subdivision - 675 and 715 Wells Street
F ~;
~'. AGENCY COMMENTS
,;
CITY CLERK:
Refer to Previous Item Packet /See AAinutes in AZ Packet
.-,
`-~ CITY ENGINEER:
:~'Y=` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
~~
fi:
`~ `ti', CITY ATTORNEY
~~
CITY POLICE DEPT:
~~~~
°~, CITY FIRE DEPT:
.-;
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
~~; Via. CITY WATER DEPT:
`'_' CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
~. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
;'~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
~u~
~~~{ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
,'~1`;~ IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
` Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented bt public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
B F ~f~..r
~~ ~
s
~ > " ~~f
~, F
.
~ ~; ~'
r ~
~
1 I
JQ ri ~
S'ti ~ ~ ~ a.~ r
`i. ;Y t '~.. '
I -Y~~y
4. r r~.f ~ 1 hf~ XMi+A%f
fi3J i'1 „. 1.
~l k '
P
(~
5~~~~ [~ .~~} hl
.
~
~ ~
h r~.
iyy'.
~ `
h
~ ,
~t.s ~'~K~ ~ s~.l. 4
~
:
x
1 ~
~ ~
..
s
~
~.4
µ,~
K.
d y
~ 4
.
mo MI .~~~
(~ ~~~ i
2 rF, Y ~ y,
a~ 'r n ?~ x
µ+ a
#'?
~' ~,"ti
;,~ a e T ~
i~ - '
~ ~ e~ iy
7 ~':~~
c
3: i~ ~~
r ,.c
n `~
,
^Y1~ ~ -
~. ~4. -
~ 9
~ at A 7 •
~ ~,., ~
wa .~,edYSg -~Y,
~i
~~ ~ f .{ 3 ..
' . ~~ ~
.,
4.
L 3
;::
Vf
:~ ~,
:.
':
~l
`t ~a
~s.
~.,
~- ~
=i
,,:~
~:
~.
May 1, 2006 CUP 06-O l 2
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT C2B Developments, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Conditional Use Permit for 18
multifamily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision - 675 and
715 Wells Street:
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
Refer to Previous Item Packet /See ftAinutes in AZ Packet
~~=
Ys 't
F~';
'~6 ".:'_
~~
~'. e
K.;,
~~ h~,~
3+F
-r
?,
'~,
:~,
~:A'{
~~"~;3#
~=
'i
.;et
N~ ~~
h fk
~;,
~<.
,. ~_
_ff~
~.,..
'." 3i
lr~~
r
,;
`: ~;
3''= ~w~"
~~ ~ ,~
I'Y-
y,~_
ASS
~? _,
,,~ r~i
. ;srt
~:~~
~ 1
(~
•
May 1, 2006 RZ 06-002
MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Stan Lantz ITEM NO. ~ 4
REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L (light industrial) to O-T
(Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz - 608 West 3rd Street
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
A! i!•~
ili...
~..
R"~4:. -:
., ~.- 4 !
• o
~~
~,
'_d
~!
~. `'
~:: s~.i
;~
May l , 2006 PP 06-020
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Winston H. Moore ITEM NO. ~ 5
REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 23 commercial lots on 31.37 acres in
a C-G zone for Centrepointe Subdivision -northwest comer of Ustick Road and Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See attached comments from ITD
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clty of Meridian.
~i
~': l y ~ G
tr ~;~ F ,^
r
~ _
'{ ~ 3 a %.
y ~:-
t ; ~~;~
~~~
'c;
a
~" ~ ~ ~: k
;q Ji-
~St ~~
~f t1'':
~` ~ ~~o
.~
a~' _
;, ~
~ Xr~
~!
~ ' ~F;t ~y ~:.
a u t f
' a Y
~. ~ ~
~.
~.+
~, ~ t
t'> a
~.f1 ri~Lt,1 j,'{
' ~ _ % a
y k ry ,,~
Y u.
A., F
S (iY
\ k`Y~
:;}'.
~a=~
s i~
r
~~.
~t'~'i R;."~
N;:
{' .: ~.
`~, ~,'
~~
§.~.
~_
>_
+z
i%'.
°~'<
sr.,. +r
':~,_
r
:::;
r4
~~;`
• •
~,. May 1, 2006 AZ 06-021
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Kenai Partners, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 6
REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G
General Commercial and R-15 Medium-High Density Residential for Kenai Subdivision -south of
East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See attached Comments from ITD; See attached letters from Cltlzens
Confacte~l: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
r':~~;
"mss
~~
Y:
,~A
~~
~' .Y
5
yi`
~::
May 1,2006 PP 06-019
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 4, 2006
APPLICANT Kenai Partners, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 7
REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 101 single-family and multi-family
residential lots with 6 common lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots
in a C-G zone for Kenai Subdivision -south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING. DIRECTOR: See Staff COmn'1entS In AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Comments in AZ Packet
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Comments in AZ Packet
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Comments in AZ Packet
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Comments from ITD In AZ Packet ~ Comments from Citizens
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
`
~ x
,, .~.
N,.
~~~ ~ ry~
~~
~ .
~ ~
c
w ~~ '
F T'
~~i ~,. ~K
3;
~ ir3'y
~
3 ~
~ ` i.
_
~
~
~~ ~
!F'AS 31
~ ~
,~'n
~~ ,
C}
~
-
t f
r
~~`~~ 7JlR,{a
I
~ ~
v
~
1 i^ "~
~~ r ~
~ G
~
E~
4 .~ :rk
~~
al:, 5~ ,
1<~~.
:; n,.
} ..
1
,~
i
~ ~
3~3
~~ t _
~tK~ ~
.
~t~ ` `
yp
•Cli 1~: Sid ,~ -ti
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~.
f
L ~' f `~7 1 i.'.tY '
" ' 4 ' r
~
. ~ ~
r' 1
6~•~~ ~~
~~ ~ S
~~ i;:
~ ?x
~
kar
t ^!.
~4
a l
F . , :;~
~.~