2006 04-06c:
TY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, April 6, 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 ho0st to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendan
O Wendy New
X David Moe -
2. Adoption of the
3. Consent Agenda:
-Huckabay X Keith Borup
:e Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Approve as Amended
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
B. Findings of Fct and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-002 Reque t for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment
Rental, Sales nd Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C -G zone
for Sunbelt E uipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC — 483 Eas Franklin Road: Approve
4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation
and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04
acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower,
LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
5. Continued Public HE
Plat approval of 106 r
and 25 common lots c
for Hightower Subd
Chinden Boulevard a
Council
•ing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary
idential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots
22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones
sion by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of
Jericho Road: Recommend Approval to City
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — April 6, 2006 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at ')ublic 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' 3 Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
6. Continued Public H aring from March 2, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that
includes single-fami y detached, townhouse units, commercial uses,
private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden
Boulevard for Hight wer Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest
corner of Chinden B ulevard and Jericho Road: Recommend Approval
to City Council
7. Continued Public H aring from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for
Annexation and Zoni ig of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -
C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates
Subdivision by Sea FSea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard
and Linder Road: R ecommend Approval to City Council
8. Continued Public Haring from March 2, 2006: PP 06-004 Request for
Preliminary Plat app�oval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and
102 detached single�family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots
on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky
Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder) Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
9. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of
Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Recommend Approval to City
Council
10. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-005 Request for
Preliminary Plat apprval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01
acres in a proposed -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea
2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Recommend ApproVal to City Council
11. Continued Public H
Annexation and Zoni
(167.02 acres), R-1;
acres) for The Tree
Boulevard on both
Subdivision: Recom
aring from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-004 Request for
g of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8
(79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45
Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden
sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing
vend Denial to City Council
12. Continued Public H aring from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-011 Request
for Annexation and 2 oning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Basin Creek Subdiirision by Pacific Landmark Development — 5603
North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoriing Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 2006 Page 2 of 4
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.
13. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-009' Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on
29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by
Pacific Landmark Development — 5603 North Locust Grove Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
14. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-012 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for
Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East
Bott Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council
15. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-010 Request
for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common
lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240
East Bott Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council
16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail uses as determined by Development Agreement for
Bridgetower Commercial by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast
corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road: Approve
17. Public Hearing: CUP 06-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail / general commercial uses as determined by
Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Commercial by Monterey,
LLC — 2240 and 2300 Everest Lane: Approve
18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
182.60 acres from RUT to TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential)
(178.65 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana
Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road
and Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 1, 2006
19. Public Hearing: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548
single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20
common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed TN -R and C -N zones for
Tanana Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of
Meridian Road and Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 1,
2006
20. Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16
acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential)
for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC — northeast
corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: Recommend
Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — April 6, 2006 Page 3 of 4
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.
21. Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47
single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development,
LLC — northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
Recommend Approval to City Council
22. Public Hearing: CUP 06-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
2,580 square -foot restaurant with a drive-thru on .73 acres in a C -G zone
for Conglomerate Drive Through B by Afton -Pacific, LLC — southwest
corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive: Approve
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 2006 Page 4 of 4
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.
•
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, April 6, 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:
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay K Keith Borup
�G David Moe - Vice Chairman _CX David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: eqp� v -.t a f 2
®,tom*- loe fir c 1?2r_ 0—'
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: A70)rlr"V%C_
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment
Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C -G zone
for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC — 483 East Franklin Road:
4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation
and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04
acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower,
LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
�L�rj'No vie.— !�'e �o-�.riti�.-dpi � � G'!G fes►— �'�✓`o �a.e
5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary
Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots
and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones
for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of
Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: '
F'�XlYil--6 vim r� G�!'Yr+�Y✓v�-c�-c�t�e-� vii L � ��'� v`�
6. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that
includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — April 6, 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.
0 0
private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden
Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest
comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
�� fi��'YJ✓`L !i'GGOaa+-�Y►Gs^-Oe s�Yrw � �!G �s'►�' O%�%�''-W (��a
7. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -
C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates
Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard
and Linder Ro d:
e�►m M,.e ids �Pr� v�. � C 1 �ouv►ci �
8. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 20W PP 06-004 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and
102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots
on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky
Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest comer of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder Road:
VoMk,,d. Q��rov� �o C.i �00vi� k
9. Continued P blic Hearing fro March 2, 2006 AZ 06-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest comer of
Linder Road a0A Chinden Boulevar :
viq ✓I�tR.,rrt 6L (0 VCA-(_`"� 1 COU VI C_ l
10. Continued Public earing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-005 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01
acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea
2 Sea, LLC — southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
11. Continued Pu lic Hearing from March 2, 200 AZ 06 004 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8
(167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45
acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden
Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing
Subdivision:
12. Continued Public_
Hearing from March 16, 2006. AZ 06 011 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development — 5603
North Locust Grove Road-
Wovhuv wk lc/
13. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-009 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on
29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by
Pacific Landmark De elopment — 5603 North Locust Grove oad:
IT ems, Q�
Mab0U�_ GCJ
14. Continued Public aring from rch 16, 2006: 06-012 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 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.
Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East
Bott Lane:
1�
15. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-010 Request
for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common
lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240
East Bott L e:
16. Public Hearing: UP 06-009 Request for a Co ditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail uses as determined by Development Agreement for
Bridgetower Commercial by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast
comer of Ten Mile Road pnd McMillan Road:
��lr® ou
17. Public Hearing: CUP 0 8 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail / general commercial uses as determined by
Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Commercial by Monterey,
LLC — 2240 and 2300 Everest Lane:
18. Public Hearing: AZ 06- Request for Annexation and Zoning of
182.60 acres from RUT to TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential)
(178.65 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana
Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road
and Victory Road: C�r/%, /-,g
19. Public Hearing: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548
single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20
common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed TN -R and C -N zones for
Tanana Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of
Meridian Road and Victory Road: R.f__ /,7 A -Ap ed /.,®6
20. Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16
acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential)
for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC — northeast
comer of East V�' °ry Road and S uth Mea Way:
1�-C(�iM C dN�21. Public Hearing: PP 06-012equesffb� or PrelirriinaryPlat approval of 47
single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development,
LLC — northeast oomer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
kJ-c�i "0U,V _ N I�pUAolitionalc,�
22. Public Hearing: CUP 06-007 RequUt for Use Permit for a
2,580 square -foot restaurant with a drive-thru on .73 acres in a C -G zone
for Conglomerate Drive Through B by Afton -Pacific, LLC — southwest
corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive:
�qfo�u/
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 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.
4�5t C, *hU, J�YA45
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, April 6, 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:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Boru
David Moe -Vice Chairman p
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm --Chairman
2• Adoption of the Agenda:
3• Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment
Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C -G zone
for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC — 483 East Franklin Road:
4• Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation
and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04
acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower,
LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary
Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots
and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones
for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of
Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
6• Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that
includes single-family detached,
townhouse units, commercial uses,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 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.
0
0
Private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden
Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest
comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
7. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -
C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates
Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard
and Linder Road:
$• Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-004 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and
102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots
on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky
Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest comer of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder Road:
9. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest comer of
Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
10. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-005 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01
acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea
2 Sea, LLC — southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
11. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-004 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8
(167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45
acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden
Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing
Subdivision:
12. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-011 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development — 5603
North Locust Grove Road:
13. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-009 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on
29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by
Pacific Landmark Development — 5603 North Locust Grove Road:
14. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-012 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —April 6, 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.
0 0
Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East
Bott Lane:
15. Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-010 Request
for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common
lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240
East Bott Lane:
16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail uses as determined by Development Agreement for
Bridgetower Commercial by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast
corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
17. Public Hearing: CUP 06-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail / general commercial uses as determined by
Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Commercial by Monterey,
LLC — 2240 and 2300 Everest Lane:
18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
182.60 acres from RUT to TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential)
(178.65 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana
Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road
and Victory Road:
19. Public Hearing: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548
single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20
common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed TN -R and C -N zones for
Tanana Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of
Meridian Road and Victory Road:
20. Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16
acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential)
for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC — northeast
comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
21. Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47
single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a
Proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development,
LLC — northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
22. Public Hearing: CUP 06-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
2,580 square -foot restaurant with a drive-thru on .73 acres in a C -G zone
for Conglomerate Drive Through B by Afton -Pacific, LLC — southwest
comer of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — April 6, 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.
0 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 6, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 6, 2006, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, and David Moe.
Member Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Mike
Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And I'd like to call this regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and we
will start with the role call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. The first item is the adoption of the agenda and we have one project
that's for Tanana Valley Subdivision that I would like to move forward to Item 4 on the
agenda, just to be continuing that to a later date, but that -- it would be -- it would be
Items 18 and 19 will be moved ahead of Items 4, 5 and 6. So, with that being said,
would someone like to make a motion to adopt the agenda as adjusted?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda as adjusted. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The agenda has been adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
0 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 6, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 6, 2006, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, and David Moe.
Member Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Mike
Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And I'd like to call this regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and we
will start with the role call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. The first item is the adoption of the agenda and we have one project
that's for Tanana Valley Subdivision that I would like to move forward to Item 4 on the
agenda, just to be continuing that to a later date, but that -- it would be -- it would be
Items 18 and 19 will be moved ahead of Items 4, 5 and 6. So, with that being said,
would someone like to make a motion to adopt the agenda as adjusted?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda as adjusted. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The agenda has been adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 2 of 136
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment
Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C -G zone
for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC — 483 East Franklin Road:
Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are two items,
approve the minutes of the March 16th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and the second one is Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of
CUP 06-002. Are there any changes to either item on this Consent Agenda?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda as is.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
182.60 acres from RUT to TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential)
(178.65 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana
Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road
and Victory Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548
single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20
common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed TN -R and C -N zones for
Tanana Valley Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of
Meridian Road and Victory Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013,
both of these items relating to Tanana Valley Subdivision for the sole purpose of
continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 1st, 2006.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before I make that motion, I would ask that other
Commissioners -- I found a letter relating to this subdivision in the packet with Item 22.
And if other people found it, then, you don't need to look for it, but it's a letter from Mr.
Lowe, the president of Observation Homeowners Association, and needs to be pulled
out of 22 and put with this stack for us to read later.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. Appreciate you calling that to our attention.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 3 of 136
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue items AZ 06-015 and PP
06-013, both relating to Tanana Valley Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting
of May 4th, 2006.
Rohm: June 1st?
Zaremba: Oh June 1st? I'm sorry. Change the motion to our regularly scheduled
meeting of June 1st, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of June 1st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Before we open up the regularly scheduled projects, I'd like to just talk to you
folks a little bit about the procedures that we have at the Planning and Zoning
Commission and how the process works. What we will do is we will open up a project
and we will ask the staff for their comments. Our staff tries to present the project to us
in terms of how it fits the Comprehensive Plan and how it fits ordinance. They're
basically neutral in the project and that's the presentation that we hear first. So,
basically, you, as the audience, will get a -- kind of a feel for what the project is without
any prejudice. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant, then, has an
opportunity to speak to the project and it's at this time that they try to sell the project to
the Commission, try and speak to its strengths and the value to the community as a
whole. Once we have taken both the staffs presentation and the applicant's, then, at
that point in time we open it up to the public for their testimony. At sometimes there will
be an individual in the audience that will be the president of a homeowners association
or something to that effect that will be speaking for a whole group of people. That
individual will be afforded I believe ten minutes to speak. All those that are speaking
just individually are given three minutes to speak to the project. And once that portion
of the hearing has been completed, then, we ask the applicant to come back up and
respond to any questions that came up during testimony. After that's been completed,
then, hopefully, we will have enough information to be able to render a decision whether
or not we are going to forward an affirmative to City Council or recommending denial.
So, that's, basically, the process from which we work here.
Rohm: And with that being said, I will open up the first -- yeah, there is more seats up
here in the front if anybody feels so compelled.
Moe: We do not bite.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation
and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 4 of 136
acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower,
LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary
Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots
and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones
for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of
Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that
includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses,
private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden
Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest
corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road:
Rohm: Okay. So, at this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from
March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, all three of these items
related to the Hightower Subdivision and begin with our staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hightower Subdivision
was continued from the March 2nd hearing as mentioned, due to a slight redesign by
the applicant and also they were continuing to work with ITD in terms of their needs for
right-of-way along Chinden and kind of continuing the talks about the proposed access
to Chinden. Hightower is a proposal for annexation and zoning of 24.03 acres from
RUT, Ada County, to the R-8, Medium Density Residential Zone, that's 12.31 acres, to
the R-15, the medium high residential zone, that's 8.04 acres, and to C -C, Community
Commercial, and that's 3.68 acres. The subdivision is located on Chinden -- on
Chinden Road, State Highway 20/26, bounded on the east by Jericho Road and
Westborough Subdivision, which you saw as a Commission I think this winter. On the
south by Arcadia and Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. On the west by some still rural Ada
County properties. And, then, on the north a county subdivision Castlebury. The
applicant has the -- probably doesn't show up real well on any of these slides,
unfortunately, but the zoning that they have requested kind of breaks down that the R-
15 zone is for some townhomes in the northwest area -- or the northeast, I'm sorry, area
of the plat. The C -C, the Community Commercial, is for some future commercial uses
right along Chinden and with the proposed -- at the proposed intersection of Saguaro
Hills Way. And, then, the R-8 proposal is for the remainder of the project for some
traditional single family detached homes. And, then, also some -- what we typically call
alley -loaded. These have what Unified Development Code defines as a mew. It's an
open space that these homes actually front onto and, then, they are accessed from a
private street is where the garages would be. Then, the homes here do face these
public streets on the perimeter of that block. Kind of a couple outstanding issues. One
that won't be considered by this body, but access to Chinden Road, State Highway
20/26, does require a variance to be located in this area. The Unified Development
Code limits accesses to state highways to at the mile and at the half mile. This is not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 5 of 136
the half mile. However, due to development patterns and in the existence of the
roadway at Castlebury across Chinden, ITD and the City of Meridian have agreed that
this is the appropriate place for a connection. They will still have to get that variance
approved by City Council when these applications reach City Council. In the future, ITD
and ACHD have indicated that Jericho Road would lose its full access and, actually,
become a right -in, right -out roadway once this roadway is constructed and possibly
signalized in the future. The applicant has proposed with their Conditional Use Permit
the mixed use portion of this project, the future commercial. As part of that they have
requested a drive-thru and have proposed an associated site plan. We do look at that
for landscape buffers, for parking, for the design of the drive-thru at this stage. It does
all meet the requirements in the Unified Development Code and we would -- with one
modification. We were happy with this commercial area as it came in. The slight
modification being that a 20 -- make sure I get the right number here — 25 -foot
landscape buffer is required between the commercial uses and the proposed
townhouse residential uses here. In speaking with the applicant, they provided a larger
than is required buffer along Jericho Road. They would like to, essentially, shift those
townhouse units five feet to the east, take five feet out of that larger than required buffer
on Jericho, and, then, add the five feet along this portion of the eastern portion of the
commercial. Staff would support that and it would be, then, meet the requirements of
the Unified Development Code. In regards to those commercial buildings, they have
proposed some elevations. We have recommended that their elevations and material
list that they have provided, that they be tied to that through a development agreement
as part of the annexation. The commercial buildings along Chinden -- Chinden is an
entryway corridor on the Comprehensive Plan, so that does required administrative
design review approval. I did include -- although that's a staff level approval that will
take place later, we did include an analysis of that in the staff report. Their proposal
does meet those requirements and we did feel that is was important to tie them to their
materials and sample elevations to insure that -- that what they propose tonight is
what's built and it stays true to the vision of what they are proposing. Along Chinden
Boulevard, the Unified Development Code -- and this landscape plan is a little bit hard
to read at first, but if you look at this portion in the lower right corner here, that's,
actually, the portion along Chinden, so, you know, that should be up above there. Kind
of their way of getting it all in one sheet. So, along Chinden there is 35 -foot landscape
buffer required. The applicant did provide that. ITD provided some revised comments
and that should be in your packets. They had an original letter dated February 13th,
then, they did revise that with a letter that was -- I want to say the first part of March or
the last part of March. Anyways, what they did was they dropped their dedicated right
of way requirement along Chinden to 70 feet and, then, did ask that the applicant keep
a setback from the center line of Chinden for roadway expansion. The issue being that
ITD isn't quite sure what sort of section -- street section Chinden will ultimately have in
this area, whether it will be their urban section, which requires a 70 -foot right of way, or
their -- I don't know if rural is the right word, but their larger highway section that
requires the hundred foot right of way. That's yet to be determined what the ultimate
future of Chinden in this area is. So, they did ask for that building setback and to the
able to expand in the future if they needed to. A couple of items on the plat. The fire
department did request a fire turnaround at the terminus of -- I believe it's Minara
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 6 of 136
Avenue. Due to the length of that stub street there will need to be a temporary
turnaround provided in an easement to the fire department. Minara and Torri, I guess,
is how you say it, which is -- there is Torri Place and, then, Torri Way are the two
circular streets. All three of those roadways have reduced street sections. They have
the 29 foot back -of -curb to back -of -curb and parking on those will be limited to one side
of the street per ACHD standards and the Meridian fire department standards. I think
the biggest outstanding issue in regards to this area of the plat is the design of the
townhouse lots on those two circular streets, Torri Way and Torri Place. As staff we did
have some concern about access to the rear most -- or southern most townhomes
proposed on each of those circles. The circle is located here and, then, those -- what
they have is these little flag lots that, then, share a common driveway to access these
townhomes. We did have some concerns about the configurations of those lots. We
did ask that this graphic be prepared. After reviewing this, we feel like this setup does
work on the northern proposed turnaround with the townhomes, because this -- going
out to Chinden right there is a common lot. Our administrator's interpretation of the
code is that any building lot adjacent to a -- to common drives, such as these, does
have to take access from those common -- from those common drives. Now, you're
limited to four homes on common drives, so this would, actually, make five, because the
lots there -- I have lost my pointer. But the lots there in the center, the one on the right
would have to take access from those common drives, that would make five taking
access from that and would not conform with the Unified Development Code. Staffs
recommendation is that those -- that this townhouse section mirror the one to the north.
That is that those two middle townhouse lots do become an open space lot. That's not
in the staff report, that's kind of a late development on that, but we would recommend
that in order to kind of resolve that access issue and that common drive issue. So, I
think that's one of the bigger outstanding issues for you to consider tonight. On the
commercial portion of the plat there was -- there was the issue of the applicant needing
to provide a landscape easement for the required street buffer along West Hightower
Drive. We did include that as a condition. And I think with that I will kind of wrap up my
comments. We do recommend approval as conditioned and with the -- with the
changes I just mentioned. I believe the applicant will have some further changes to
discuss in regards to the discussions with an adjacent landowner, some modifications
that they are willing to do, that they have proposed and agreed to. So, that will be for
your consideration as well. I think with that I will take any questions the Commission
has.
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your report. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time
I would like to have the applicant come forward, please.
Holt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My
name is Phil Holt with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I have got
a presentation on PowerPoint that Josh is going to put in for me real quick.
Wilson: It usually takes a second to load.
Holt: I will try to keep it brief also. It looks like you have a long agenda tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 7 of 136
Rohm: Yes, we do.
Wilson: All right. I think we are set.
Holt: Okay. As staff mentioned the Comprehensive Plan calls for a neighborhood
center, mixed use development up in this location here. You can see on the Comp Plan
at -- it's kind of between Meridian Road and Locust Grove. We are requesting
annexation, rezone, conditional use, preliminary plat, and a variance tonight. Let's go to
the next slide. I put together a composite aerial to give you a little bit better idea of
what's happening in the adjacent areas. We have got Westborough, which is approved
here. It's a mixed use development. Arcadia here. Saguaro Canyon here. You can
kind of see the lots down below here. Here is our site here. You can see Signature
Point nursery here. The church. Zamzows. And, then, the large Catholic church on the
corner here. And, then, Castlebury across the way there. Next one is our rezone plan,
which better defines the zoning areas. We have got the C -C zone here where the
commercial is located. R-15, which wraps around that commercial area. And, then, the
R-8 towards the back, feathering out to a lower density the further south that you get to
transition better into Saguaro Canyon. Okay. This shows the master plan of the
property in a graphic format to give you an idea of the common areas and street trees,
just to give you an overall feel of the development, as well as the buffer areas along the
frontage of the roadways. Eight foot planter strips along all the interior roadways with
street trees throughout to give you that real boulevard, street tree feel. We have a one
acre park site in the middle of the project. We are including 18 percent open space on
this project. And the park site includes amenities; such tot lots, gazebo, and open
space play areas. I have got a couple of enlargements of some of the key areas on
this. One is that one acre park site in the center. And these homes, the alley -loaded
homes, their front yards and porches, basically, face out onto that common green area.
I have got a photograph of a similar development that we did in Eagle called Winding
Creek that has that same sort of setup. Next is the townhome lot area and we did just
provide this graphic for staff today in order to show how these driveways would workout
on these shared driveway lots. And we will work with staff over the next few days to
figure out how we can configure a driveway for this double townhome here and if we
can't, we may have to -- have to lose that. We will try our best to accommodate the
UDC code requirements on that particular lot. Next is an enlargement of the
commercial area. Again, we are showing three commercial buildings. We have broken
up the parking lot into two distinct parking areas to avoid a large sea of asphalt out in
front along Chinden. And we have broken up the buildings into smaller building sets in
order to avoid a strip mall looking commercial along Chinden as well. And we have
provided the 35 foot buffer and pathway along Chinden for good buffering as well. And
one of the comments in the staff report dealt with pedestrian access to the commercial
center from the walkway out on Chinden. We will provide a connection here and a
crosswalk across that drive aisle. And we also have pedestrian connections in from the
Hightower Drive here into these plaza spaces on the interior, to kind of try to create the
most pedestrian friendly commercial center that we can. Next. Next is the conditional
use site plan. You may have to look at the larger scale one that was included in your
packets, but it includes a lot more detail around the commercial area, as far as the lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 8 of 136
dimensioning, parking lots, drive aisles sizes and all that to make sure that we do
conform with the UDC code on that area. As staff mentioned, we are looking -- it looks
like we are in good shape there. The first sheet of the pre -plat I wanted to point out how
we are going to deal with the fire department comment on Minara right here. What we
have is a 20 foot common lot that travels all along the south side of these lots here with
a pathway in it and our plan is to do a hammerhead turnaround and replace that six foot
pathway with a 20 foot asphalt area that is temporary -- temporary until this roadway is
extended down into the next development and, then, we can take out that 20 foot
asphalt and put lawn back in and keep the six foot asphalt connection. Next slide.
Basically just another shot of the pre -plat. And next slide, please. Next one is the
landscape plan. We showed the trees in color just to give you an idea of how the
boulevards are lined with street trees and the eight foot planter strip. And staff pointed
out the discrepancy on our buffer areas up in the commercial area and where the
townhomes abut Jericho. We have provided five feet too much buffer space on Jericho
and five feet too little on -- between the commercial and the townhomes. And I did have
a conversation with staff today about potentially moving the townhomes five feet over to
even that up, but after thinking about it a little bit more, I would almost rather see more
buffering along Jericho than between the commercial building pad site and these
homes. So, if it's something that you would be agreeable to, I would rather keep 20 feet
here and 25 feet here, as opposed to vice -versa, but, you know, we can go either way.
I just think it might be a little bit better to buffer more against the roadway. A little bit
more traffic noise I think there. Again, we have 18 percent open space in this area with
that one acre park space in the center. And we have interconnected pathways
throughout. Interconnected pathways all along all the roadways, through the park sites,
along the bottom here and all the long the frontage of both roads and interconnected
through that commercial space as well. Okay. Next. Next we are showing some home
styles that we are planning to match the quality of materials shown here, such as brick,
stone, different materials on some of the higher quality homes in the area. This is the
photograph here that I mentioned earlier about the homes with the front porches and
front entries located along the park space. Really provides a nice open community -type
feel for those alley -load homes. Next is the commercial area. These shots taken from
Eagle River in Eagle, just to show quality of materials, such as stonework, the awnings,
different architectural punch outs in the walls to create a little bit of interest, no flat
planes, basically creating a nice architectural theme with it. The next staff mentioned
that we are working with one of the adjacent neighbors to come up with some
compromises to some issues that he has brought up and that deals with this -- this
home right here. Here is our western property line right here. We have got 520 feet
from the back patio here to the homes right here. And in a couple of different meetings,
one on site on the neighbor's property, an agreement was arrived at that reduced the
height of five of the homes right in here along that western property line to 25 feet.
Thirty-five feet is allowed in the -- in this zoning area, but we have agreed to go down to
25 feet for those homes to help preserve that view corridor. Other concerns that he had
were putting language into the CCRs that basically stated that this property here is RUT
in the county and that it is under agricultural use and that it will remain so. We don't
have a problem with adding that language in there. I think it's mainly just to protect --
protect him from neighbors complaining about ag use on that piece of ground. So, no
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 9 of 136
problem there. And he has requested, along with our fence line, all along this western
property line, we are providing a six foot fence, but he has also requested five gallon
arborvitae spaced roughly at four feet on center for that entire stretch and planted on his
property. And we have agreed to do that as well to help provide that buffer for him.
And, let's see, after -- after the onsite agreement to reduce the height of these five
homes to 25 feet, he has come back to the developers and requested that be lowered to
23 feet. And as well as reducing the height on the entire subdivision to 30, instead of
the 35 feet. And that is something after coming to an agreement on those five homes
and really putting a lot of thought into the style of homes that we are trying to create on
this with two story, nicely pitched roofs, the high quality and the style that we are looking
for, I don't think that we can agree to that 30 foot limitation on the entire project. So, we
are sticking with the 35 height maximum and the 25 foot that was originally agreed to on
site. Next slide, Josh. Thank you. This shows a -- kind of a view shed type study that
we did from the back patio of this home with 520 foot distance showing a 25 -foot home.
The upper box here is the 35 -- or, excuse me, the -- yeah, the 35 -foot height. The
black area is the 25 -foot height. So, we are drawing view shed lines to the first home
and we have a roadway and, then, the second row of homes. If that was built out as a
35 -foot height you could see that it just barely clips the top of that home and if this was
to remain at a 35 -foot height, it goes completely over the top of that second row. So, I
think we are okay with keeping that -- the next rows in at 35 feet and we have agreed to
keep those first -- or the five homes along that side at 25 feet. Then, the last request
was for the developers to provide equipment and labor to the current landowner to
upgrade some ditch work and whatnot to keep water from flowing onto his property and
kind of flooding him out, which has happened in the past and we have agreed to do that
as well this spring. The last thing I want to talk about is a little bit more about the ITD
access and the process that we went through to kind of reach consensus on that. We
have had multiple meetings with ITD, Compass, ACHD, and the city staff to arrive at a
location that everyone can agree to here for a lighted intersection, which isn't quite at
the half mile section, but it's real close. Got Meridian Road here, Locust Grove here,
and we are in this location. But with the development that's happened over the past
year or so, Castlebury and Castlebury West, that's built out completely across this
frontage here with no access points to Chinden. As well as our roadway connections
through Saguaro all the way down to McMillan, this is the natural location for that half
mile lighted intersection substitute. So, I guess with consensus from ITD and the letters
that they have provided in support of that, I know that you folks can't make a decision on
that, that goes onto Council, but I would love to see a -- some sort of note in the -- in
your deliberation that states that you would support that as well. With that I'll turn it
over.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a fine presentation. Is there any questions of the
applicant at this time?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 10 of 136
Moe: Mr. Hall, just a couple of things I want to kind of go through with you. In regards
to the townhomes where you discussed meeting with staff to go over that, are you,
basically, not willing to make those common lot and reduce down on the building there?
Holt: You know, based on our 18 percent common space that we have right now, I
would like to at least take a look at salvaging that configuration. If it comes down to not
being able to meet the UDC as far as how many lots take access off of the common
drives or whatnot, we will turn that into a common lot.
Moe: In regard to the -- are you anticipating fencing between the commercial and the
residential to the east?
Hold: Between which? I'm sorry.
Moe: From the commercial portion to the residential to the east.
Holt: Yes.
Moe: What type fencing is that to be?
Holt: Most likely vinyl.
Moe: Vinyl?
Holt: Yeah. Probably a tan vinyl.
Moe: Is that the same that you're doing on the west side as well, then?
Holt: That is correct.
Moe: Okay. I think that's it for me right now.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Anyone else?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Actually, one is a comment and that is on your working with the neighbor to
agree that they can continue to farm their property as they currently are, I think that's
typically handled by on the plat putting a note that -- about the Right To Farm Act. I
think if you just reference the Right To Farm Act on your plat, staff can correct me if I'm
wrong, but that should handle that issue.
Holt: Okay. Sounds good.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 11 of 136
Zaremba: The other is you talked about your discussions with ITD and I see in a letter
that they have provided, dated March 30, they are still asking to work with you on
acceleration and deceleration lanes on Chinden.
Holt: That's correct.
Zaremba: Are you optimistic that you're working with them and something will --
Holt: Yes. Yes, we are. In fact, we have submitted a permit for this access and as part
of that permit application, when they go through their deliberations with the commission;
they will either approve or deny the access. Once they approve the access, then, we
come back to them with all of the construction plans and whatnot on how that all works
out, together with the potentially the center turn lane, and the accel and decel lanes.
So, yes, that's a requirement that ITD puts on and that's what we will do.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much.
Holt: Thank you.
Rohm: At this time would Tom Book like to come forward, please?
Book: Well, thanks for the opportunity to be here. I have never been to a public
meeting before. I did read through your instructions and so I will try and, you know,
follow the best I can on right protocol to be handling this. I wasn't planning on being
here. I have been --
Rohm: Before you begin, please, state your name and address for the record.
Book: My name is Tom Book. The property address is 6168 Glide Spear. That's the
property I own. I do not currently live there. Do you need my home address?
Rohm: Please.
Book: 11254 Hickory Loop Drive, Boise.
Rohm: Thank you.
Book: You know, I've had discussions with the development team or that plating team,
actually, is what they are, for the last 45 days and as of a week and a half ago I wanted
written confirmation that they would concur with the things I had talked to them and they
didn't send me that and as of yesterday afternoon I did not have verbal confirmation
from them. In fact, the first I have heard anything about it was when Phil Holt just made
a public announcement to you folks. So, because I didn't hear anything yesterday I am
here and I have prepared to talk to you about my concerns. And my concerns, actually,
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 12 of 136
are a lot more than what I had talked to them, but I was willing to compromise with them
before and I feel that they squandered that. The minor issues that Phil talked about,
those are all fine, as far as my property line; as far as I want the homeowners to know
that I will be farming that land, that's why I bought it. I didn't buy it to develop it. I am
pro development. I think it's great that this property is being developed. I just -- I just
want those people to know that I will be farming it and it's going to be noisy and stinky
and I want them -- I want them to know that. As far as why I just decided come up here
even after Phil conceded to those three, it really has to do with I think my responsibility
to, I guess, help the community. This plat is high density and I'm for that. When
looked at these lots I thought, geez, this is a good use for this land. They are getting a
lot of good use out of this land. I was impressed with how much use they are getting
out of it. But what I see and think and feel as far as that density goes is that the city
wants to create that density, because it -- normally what happens when you create that
density by having 4,800 square foot lots and 5,000 square foot lots, is you create some
ability for the homeowners to purchase those properties, as opposed to doing one acres
and building 800,000 dollar homes. And the problem I have with this is that I believe
that the plat team and the development team is trying to circumvent the spirit of the city
when it comes to density. What they are trying to do, because -- because the lots are
only 5,000 square feet, what they are trying to do is not build to 250 and 290 thousand
dollars homes in there, they are trying to build 400,000 dollar homes in there. And the
only way to do that is to build mansions in the sky. They are trying to get 3,000, 3,200
square foot homes on these 4,800, 5,000 square foot lots. And I just -- I have talked to
them about their house plans and even Phil, those ones that he showed there, all
they're pointing to there is just the quality of construction. They are not telling you about
the vertical silos that they plan on building and I love silos and I wish there was a farm
there with the silos, but it's going to be silos with people living in them. I have a couple
of photos to give you and a couple house plans to give, because they were not
courteous enough to me to provide me with house plans that had heights on them. I
had to do research on my own this morning at 3:00 o'clock in order to prepare for this
meeting and I would like to share these with you, just so you know what is available to
put on these lots. Those home plans right there will fit on these lots. Those home plans
do not exceed 25 feet in height. And if you look at the quality of those, they look exactly
like the quality that Phil showed up here, except that they won't -- they won't commit to
the heights on them. What I -- what I would like for the city to do is to maintain the spirit
of the density and to maintain the purchase ability of these homes with the spirit of the
city and to restrict the height to 25 feet for all the single family residences in this
subdivision. The reason why they don't want to do it, obviously, is because if somebody
is going to -- if a builder is going to sell a 4,000 square foot house, he's willing to pay
more for the lot, even though the lot doesn't cost more to build. I have prepared for
each one of you an economic discussion of this project to show you that. Twenty-five
foot heights -- that 25 foot heights are feasible for this site.
Rohm: While he's -- while we are distributing the papers here, I think it's important that I
note that, typically, you're only given three minutes for your presentation. In fact, due to
the fact that you have put so much effort into preparing for this, we are going to give you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 13 of 136
some extra time, but it's also important that you carry this through, so that we can finish
up and be able to go on to our deliberations.
Book: Yeah. And the material -- I will just quick summarize it. If you -- well, the house
plans speak for themselves, hopefully. And as far as the -- as far as this printout that I
gave you, what I tried to do was -- or not what I tried, what I actually did was to equate
for you the size of the home, the height of the home, and what the value of the home is.
And, then, because of that, you extrapolate what the value of the lot is, what is a builder
willing to purchase in order to put that type of house on the lot. And so when see you in
the base land price -- or the one that -- the one that says 25 height requirement base
scenario, you see on that scenario that there is still a 1.2 million dollar profit in it for the
developer. If I --
Borup: Sir, I'm not sure what the developer's profit has to with anything that we are
going to be considering, so unless --
Book: Okay. Okay. Let me go to the second -- let me go to the second sheet. The
second sheet behind here, I just wanted to point out to you folks -- and, hopefully, you
guys monitor this and, hopefully, guys are concerned about this -- or at least it's one of
ten things that you consider -- is the median income for Meridian and the purchasing
power of the people that live here in the city. The median income is 58,000 dollars as of
fiscal year 2005. That allows the median household to purchase a house worth 210,000
dollars. That's with a six and a half percent mortgage, you know, 30 year, 20 percent
down. With a 25 foot height restriction you will help achieve housing that, you know, the
median income -- and, actually, it would have to be slightly higher than the median
income, because 25 foot housing in this subdivision is going to be in the 230 to 290
range is how much the homes would cost if you went to a 25 foot height and you can
see on my analysis, you know, that gets up to an 80,000 dollar household income. So, I
just wanted you guys to take that under consideration, because I think it's important for
the community to -- if we are going to do high density, to do it so that people can live
there.
Rohm: Thank you. I would like to just speak to your presentation. And thank you. You
did a great job and it's appreciated, all the effort that you put into this. I think that it's
also important that I tell you that as the Commission we try to stay clear of telling
developers what kind of homes to build in terms of pricing. And, you know, we try to
address the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance and, then, the compromises that are
made between a developer and the adjacent property owners are just that, those things
take place off the record and as in this particular development, the developer came and
met with you and agreed to the 25 foot height limitation on the adjacent lots to your
property and that, actually, happens quite frequently. I'm not trying to speak for the
balance of the Commission, but, typically, we do not view developments in terms of
price range, structures within that development, only the size of lots and the setbacks
and things such as that. So, I just want to you know we are --
Book: So, what is the purpose of the small lots, then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 14 of 136
Rohm: The differing zones within the area of impact of the City of Meridian are
established in an effort to transition from low density to medium density to high density
within the area of impact and the City of Meridian as a whole and as each development,
this one included, comes before the Commission, what we try to do is we try to look at it
in terms of how it complies with that Comprehensive Plan.
Book: Okay. Why wouldn't you want to consider restricting the heights? What's the
down side in that?
Borup: What's the up side? That's already a city ordinance. That's already been
established over a lot of years and revisions and that's -- that's something that works.
So, why change is my question?
Book: To create housing that the working family in Meridian can live in. But if that's not
what you guys care about, then, there isn't -- you're right, then, I don't have an answer
for it.
Rohm: And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to characterize it that we don't care about that.
And, typically, the smaller lots will have homes that are more affordable than acre lots,
like you made in your presentation, and if it's -- we just have not tried to put restrictions
on the developers that require them to build a certain value structure and we try to steer
away from that at as much as possible, but --
Nary: Sorry. I thought you were done. I'm sorry.
Rohm: Well, in any case, I would like you to know that we appreciate your testimony
and it will receive due consideration.
Book: The last community thing that I have is that the developers here are getting one
step ahead now, because they are going vertical. You guys used to shrink down lots to
have that control, but now they have turned the cycle, so now they are going vertical.
So, I think the next -- the next thing for you guys to start thinking about is vertical, if you
want housing that the regular Meridian working tax paying person can buy.
Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in
this -- for this application? Okay. At this time would the applicant like come back
forward, please?
Holt: Thank you. I would like to clarify exactly which lots are the five that we have
agreed to go down to 25 feet on and that is Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10. And Lot 10
of Block 8. And just to bring up one more point about lot sizes and whatnot, I don't
know if this helps the situation, but 30 of our lots are the townhome lots and they are in
the range of 3,200 up to about 4,500 square feet. I would imagine that those lots going
to most likely max out 26 or 28 hundred square foot homes, not up into the 3,OOOs, I
wouldn't think, just because of the size -- size of the lots, so -- similarly designed homes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 15 of 136
in that Winding Creek development that I mentioned in Eagle, with the alley -load
homes, those are selling for in the neighborhood of 260 to 280. So, they are not getting
clear up into the 300s as mentioned. So, I think with the alley loads and the townhome
lots, I think the size of homes that are going to be provided there will provide some
amount of affordability I would think. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you coming back up. Anymore questions of the
applicant?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You had just mentioned the five lots that were restricted
and I'm -- and I think that's great that you worked to compromise with the neighbor, but
what's your understanding of the reason for that?
Holt: Based on the meetings on site and the requests by the neighbor, it was, basically,
all about the view corridor, view shed. This is the first I have heard about the economic
impacts of the house sizes and whatnot.
Borup: So, this is the view for the farmer as he's farming the ground and he's out
plowing the field, he can have a good view for --
Holt: Well, view from the patio on the home that we showed. I think it was 520 feet
away from that patio.
Borup: Okay. I thought the testimony was he was -- this was farm ground to be
farming, not to be living there.
Holt: All right.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Discussion? Any thoughts on this before we request a closure of the Public
Hearing?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, only to comment that it appears to me to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, with the adjustments requested by staff. It's
long been a precedent of this Commission and possibly even state law in Idaho, that
nobody is guaranteed a view through their neighbor's property. I think the applicant has
been very generous in offering to limit five lots to 25 feet. I would not ask the applicant
to go any farther than that. As Commissioner Borup pointed out, the 35 foot limit in the
R-8 zone has been a longstanding limit and we have recently passed a new Unified
Development Code that included that again. It's pretty well established. And our main
job is not to do the marketing or consider the economics for the developer; they are
supposed to decide what's economically feasible for them. Our job is to decide does it
comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and it appears to me that it
does.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 16 of 136
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Moe, do you have any
comment?
Moe: Yes, sir. I would concur with Mr. Zaremba. A couple of things that I would also
like to add to it. In regards to the buffer between the commercial and the residential, I
would, in fact, like to see it go back to 25 -foot. I realize that if they shift it, it's taken care
of. I'm a little bit more concerned that there will be noise within the commercial to the
residential, so I would like to see what staff have recommended stay in place. And let's
see here. I guess a question for staff I would have, Josh, in regards to the common lot
and whether or not -- I guess I want to know how we act on that this evening, if, in fact,
you guys are recommending a common lot in lieu of the building and they want to work
with staff to possibly work that in., How are we going to handle that?
Wilson: In the past you, as the Commission, have been fairly hesitant to pass things
along to City Council unresolved and I think if you did that that's what you would be
doing. Just looking at it, you know, we do have the limitation of no more than four
homes on a common lot. So, you know, if he did work the one there to access off that
common lot, I think that still leaves us with five, unless something is done with the
northernmost unit on that attached structure there, to somehow get it off of the common
drive, which with the lot configurations -- I guess I am not seeing how it would work right
now. So, I think I would stick with our recommendation that that's a common lot.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. And I appreciate everybody's input on this. At this
time I think we are probably ready to close the Public Hearing, if I could get a motion.
Zaremba: I guess the question on that is whether we want to see the resulting plat from
the discussion with the staff about whether a lot is going to need to be eliminated or not.
Rohm: Well, I think that lot will still remain, but it will just become a common lot, as
opposed to a developable lot. And so the lot configuration will remain constant, it's just
there won't be a townhouse available on that lot.
Borup: I have got a question, then. On the lot -- the space between Lot 10 and 11,
what is that area? It doesn't seem to have a lot number, but --
Wilson: It does have a lot number. I think that lot goes clear out to the landscape
buffer. There is --
Borup: Oh, that's part of the landscape buffer.
Wilson: Yeah. That -- along Jericho it comes down and there is a strip along the
southern boundary there and that is, actually, part of that same lot and that -- as you
see on the drawing there, that does have a pathway connection on it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 17 of 136
Borup: Is that the minimum size for a pathway lot?
Wilson: No. No, it isn't. They do need to have a five foot landscape buffer on either
side of the path. That -- it may --
Borup: What I'm leading to, can they do the same thing on -- in between Lot 8 and 9?
And, then, they would not have access to the common drive. I don't know if there is
room to do that or not.
Wilson: I don't know if there is room or not either. The -- you know, Lot 9 is
considerably larger than Lot 10, so there may be some room to work there and still keep
those two town -- you know, it would kind of --
Borup: And shift them over and take some out of that lot?
Wilson: It would be kind of odd with one town -- you know, if they had to eliminate that -
the one on Lot 9. It would be kind of odd with one townhouse out there between two
common lots. Not that it couldn't work, it would be a little strange, but maybe they can
kind of squeeze that down and keep those two there.
Borup: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe -- I mean we are talking about not passing
something on without having it resolved, maybe the applicant could comment on that to
see if that's a design change that they could do, if it would be feasible.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come back up for just a moment?
Holt: As you mentioned, this lot here is quite a bit larger than this site, just because it
flares out there. And the common lot is wider than the minimum required. I think if we
get the five feet on each side of the five foot pathway for landscape, take a little bit out
of this lot to match the size of this lot, I think we may have room there.
Borup: So, that sounds feasible, something you would like to do or spend more time
and think about it?
Holt: I would like to take a shot at it.
Borup: Is that feasible for the Commission?
Rohm: As long as it doesn't interfere with the buffer as required by the ordinance.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Is that something they could work out with staff, then, and have it taken care of
prior to City Council?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 18 of 136
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: And not require another Public Hearing here.
Rohm: I think so, as long as we make a motion to that effect. I don't see any reason
why they can't work out those details with staff.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on these three items, AZ 06-003, PP 06-
003, and CUP 06-004.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-003,
PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Okay. Discussion of what the next motion would be. If we look at the
conditions, I'm on -- I'm on site specific requirements and preliminary plat. I would add
a couple of paragraphs. The last paragraph here is 1.1.12. 1 would add a 13 that says
the developer will continue to work with ITD on the acceleration -deceleration lanes as
mentioned in the ITD letter. I would add a next one that requires them to reference the
Right To Farm Act on the plat. I would add another that says they volunteered to limit
the height to 25 feet on the five lots that they mentioned. And I would add another that
says work with staff on -- what do you call the last thing we were just talking about?
Rohm: I think it would just be a buffer adjustment on the townhouse lots to the south.
Zaremba: Anybody think of anything I'm leaving out? Okay. In that case, Mr.
Chairman?
Borup: If you want to specify that as the lot access on the Lot 9, Lot 6 -- I mean to
rectify the common driveway conflict.
Zaremba: Okay. I'll take a stab at it.
Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba, I think just one thing. The applicant had mentioned
the planting of the arborvitaes on the neighbor's property as well. Did you mention that
already?
Meridian Planning &Zoning
•
April 6, 2006
Page 19 of 136
Zaremba: I did not. No.
Borup: That is an off-site improvement.
Wilson: Right. If you want to tie them to that, then, that would probably have to be
done as part of the development agreement, I think.
Borup: Do the arborvitae need to be limited to 25 feet at full growth?
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to take a stab at the motion.
Rohm: Ready.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-002, PP 06-002, and
CUP 06-004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, with
the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: I would add a
paragraph ten that says that the applicant has volunteered to place arborvitae on the
neighbor's property. On the site specific requirements for preliminary plat, I would add a
paragraph 1.1.13, says the applicant will continue to work with ITD on the possibility of
acceleration -deceleration lanes on Chinden, as referenced in ITD's letter of March 30,
2006. 1 would add a paragraph 1.1.14, that applicant will reference the Right To Farm
Act on the face of the plat. I would add a paragraph 1.1.15 that says that the applicant
has volunteered to limit the heights of the buildings on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10,
and Lot 10 of Block 8, to a height limit of 25 feet. I would add a paragraph 1.1.16 that
applicant will work with the staff on Lot 9 of Block 6 to solve the common drive and
buffer problem and that that needs to be finished by ten days before the City Council
hearing. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, to include all staff comments with
amendments as stated by Commissioner Zaremba. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -
C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates
Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard
and Linder Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-004 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 20 of 136
102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots
on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky
Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder Road:
Rohm: Thank you all for your participation in this matter. At this time I would like to
open the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 06-005 and PP 06-
004, both of these items related to Knight Sky Estates Subdivision and begin with the
staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this item
was on the March 2nd agenda. We did not actually have a presentation by staff or hold
the hearing, we were waiting to get comments from ACHD. I thought that they were
going to be pretty pertinent comments and wanted to have those in hand before I
formulated a complete staff report and made a recommendation to the Commission. I
do have those now for this project. I guess before we go too far, let me describe the
project to you a little bit more. There are three applications. One is for annexation and
zoning of 58.56 acres through three different zones. An R-4 zone is about 32.68 acres.
A TNC zone, which is the traditional neighborhood center, that is just over 14 acres.
And a community business, the C -C zone is at 11 acres. That's one application. There
is also a preliminary plat that has been submitted that includes 126 residential lots, 24 of
those lots being townhouse lots, and the remaining 102 are detached single family lots.
As mentioned, there are seven commercial lots and 26 common lots. The third and final
application is for a private street. There are actually two private streets and I will point
those out to you when we talk about the plat here in just one second. The site is
located on the northwest corner of Linder and Chinden and this lot was plated as a 75
percent open space lot for the county subdivision back in 1991, Brandt Subdivision,
which is the build -able lots in Brandt, as you can see, are just to the northeast of the
parcel that's being developed. The subject property is within the area proposed to be
part of the City of Meridian's area of impact and proposed urban service planning area.
It was recently acted on by the City Council to amend our Comprehensive Plan future
land use map and include this area. But has not become part of our area of impact yet,
as those negotiations with the county are still going on. So, here is an aerial view of the
project. As you can see there is -- the Brandt Subdivision lots are one acre lots in Ada
County. That is within Eagle's area of impact. To the north are some five acre lots in
Almaden Subdivision. To the south is Lochsa Falls. The vacant stuff that you see there
on Chinden Boulevard are office lots that will be the subject of future hearings before
this board. Here is the preliminary plat. Just to point out a few things with the plat.
They are proposing one public street access to Chinden Boulevard located at their
western boundary. The driving range for the golf course is just to the west of that.
There is also an access -- the pointer is dying. There is also an access to Linder Road
for the project. Those are the two public street access to the existing public streets.
Staff made some comments in the staff report. The applicant has revised the submitted
preliminary plat to include most of staffs comments that are before you in the staff
report for tonight's hearing. I will point out a few of those changes. They did remove
one of the lots that were on the northwest side of the property and all of these lots now
Meridian Planning &Zoning
® i
April 6, 2006
Page 21 of 136
along the northern boundary of the property are in the 15,000 square foot range. One
of the changes that was not was made is staff is recommending that a stub street be
provided to -- you can kind of see the parcel lines for the five acres. There is one there
and there is another one I believe right here. Staff is recommending that a public stub
street be provided to one of these two five acre parcels, so that when those redevelop in
Eagle, those folks will have access to Chinden Boulevard and will not have to go
through the Linder intersection. It also helps with the purpose statement of the TNC
zone, making it a focal point for a neighborhood within a one to two mile area that way
folks can walk to the services that are going to be provided in this area and really make
this a focal point, a community center, if you will, for this area. Staff is recommending
that they amend the legal descriptions for the project and just have three C -C lots,
which is a more intense commercial zone property and, then, make these remaining
TNC lots -- rezone those to TNC, provide new legal descriptions for those lots. There
are some single family residences that are pretty close to all of this, the road, and
thought that would be a better fit for the neighborhood. I did want point out, though, that
the TNC does have a minimum two story height requirement for -- in the TNC. There
aren't many other standards for development in the TNC. This is the first application
that we have actually processed with TNC, I believe. It does require all buildings to be
two story within that zoning designation. So, just to call that out. I did also ask the
applicant in the staff report to clarify some of the amenities and things that are shown on
the site plan. There are quite a few amenity ponds shown. There has been concern by
at least one neighbor that I have talked to about what do these ponds look like, as well
as the drainage ponds that they showing, being mosquito breeding grounds and those
types things. So, I just wanted clarification on -- is there a fountain in the middle of it?
How is this going to look? Those types of things. Also, the clubhouse -- there is a
clubhouse talked about here, but we do not have any elevations or square footage or
any details on what this clubhouse is and, again, the TNC is -- makes it -- it's supposed
to be the focal point for the neighborhood and I think that will have a huge impact on
how well this area works. There weren't too many other changes. I guess I will talk
about a couple that ACHD required. ACHD required a stub street to this three acre
parcel that Spurwing has actually acquired. I believe they are going to put their tennis
courts there, but there is a stub street to it now. Their commissioners did approve the
location of this public street, Knights Park Drive, I believe it's called, to where it
intersects Linder Road. There has been concern by neighbors that the existing Brandt -
- entrance to Brandt Subdivision is not too far off. ACHD did approve it. I have to
assume that it meets their policy. I have not verified that, but it was on their commission
a couple of weeks ago, I believe. I do have several letters from neighbors in the area. I
hope you all have those as well. There is too many to mention them by name. We also
received a petition/statement letter late this afternoon. I hope all that is in front of all of
you as well. And the final thing, I guess, is a public works comment. There is in the
development agreement -- and Mike can correct me if need be. There is a lift station
that's going to be built in this project. In order take that lift station off line in the future,
an easement is needed through this out parcel. It's not part of the subject parcel. A 20
foot wide easement I believe it is. So, that that can be taken off line when, in fact, the
main is constructed in the future to gravity flow back. So, I did just want to point that
out. That is a little bit of an odd ball condition, an off-site odd ball condition. I hope you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 22 of 136
had a chance to read through the rest of the staff report and the conditions. With that,
though, I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you. Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one and, actually, of Mr. Cole. One of the things
that's going to be mentioned by the neighbors is the position of the rain water runoff
ponds, I guess we are calling them, and the question about whether they are likely to
foul nearby wells. Is there a staff opinion on that?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Public Works, City of Meridian,
doesn't own the roadways or the runoff that comes off it. That is reviewed by the Ada
County Highway District. However, the professional engineer that will design that will
probably use DEQ's best management practice policies. There is really not BMP that
talks about storm water ponds to private wells. There is one that relates to public wells,
a deep well that would serve an entire city, like the City of Meridian's public wells. And
the best management practice for that the DEQ requires is 50 feet. I think they are
further than 50 feet from these wells -- from these ponds to their wells. I haven't
measured it exactly. If they were to go through an infiltration basin of some nature, a
seepage bed, instead of a pond, then, it would go to 150 feet would be DEQ's
requirement. That requirement, again, is to a public well system. There is, actually, not
a requirement to private wells. However, general practice is to follow the same BMP for
the private wells as the public wells. And I'm sure as these plans are reviewed by DEQ
that they will hold the design engineer to those standards.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come
forward, please.
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel. 839 East
Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle.
Rohm: Shawn, before you start, I would like to just give you a little help here, if you
don't mind. There is a significant number of people that have signed up to speak to this
and I'm presuming that you had a community meeting or probably multiple community
meetings before bringing this proposal before the Commission and what I would like --
you know, you can make your presentation in any fashion you want, but I think
something that might help to go through this process is to address those issues in your
presentation that you believe have come to resolve, so that at such time that your
presentation is completed, then, there may be less issues for public testimony after your
presentation. But it's certainly your liberty to speak as you choose.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do think that's a good idea and we have --
indeed, had -- we did have one formal neighborhood meeting early on in the process. I
have had meetings subsequently with property owners to the north, both at my office
Meridian Planning &Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 23 of 136
and, then, at ACHD meetings we have sat afterwards and met with them. So, I can
address those up front and I do believe there is a lot of -- some things we have
accommodated the neighbors on. There is some things that they will have questions on
and my engineer is here to address specific questions about the drainage, so I will let
him -- I will defer those to him. And I will be very brief, because staff did a good job,
both in his presentation and in his staff report. I will just touch on the highlights. Knight
Sky Subdivision is, as you know, on the northwest corner of one of the major
intersections in the city -- or future intersection in the city, Linder and Chinden. And as
you recall, we recently changed the Comprehensive Plan to have a mixed -- kind of a
mixed development, mixed used along Chinden and medium density up here in the
residential portion. What we have tried to do in the design is design some higher
intensity commercial at the corner and, then, transition to townhouses along the
boundary of Chinden and, then, transition up residential and, then, finally to the northern
property to those larger lots. I think we have done an excellent job at that. Staff is
recommending that we bring this property here back to the TNC zone. So, in other
words, the TNC zone would be to this point right here, with this being the commercial.
We are fine with that. We -- there is a conditional of approval that we will submit a new
legal description for the zoning and annexation portion. In addition, we do understand
that these will be two story offices or retail in this area right here. I do have some
samples that will show you in a little bit of kind of the concept we think for the design of
these. As far as the single family, they do transition in size up to -- and, again, we
agreed with staff. We took out one lot to the north, made these all a minimum of 15,000
square feet along the north, and I do think that the neighbors appreciated the larger lots
up there. We do have, as you see, pathways and open space, a clubhouse with a pool.
We also redesigned per your staffs request this townhouse concept here. So, the plan
you have right here in front of you is not the revised -- if, Josh, could you put the --
have got colored in highlighter. You can see that now -- I'm sorry, it's so poor. Every
townhouse lot now backs up to open space and those open space are mews as they
are sometime called, will provide additional view and amenity. Those will be ponds,
lined ponds in between those and there is open space areas. We have coordinated
with your fire department on providing secondary emergency access to this area in
here, in addition, we have met and worked with the highway district, both ACHD and
ITD, on the locations of these entrances. We did try to get another entrance, right -in,
right -out on Chinden. We were turned down by ACHD -- or by ITD. And, as you know,
the city would have also denied that request, too, but we felt it was important to at least
try to get that second access out on Chinden. Staff is recommending a development
agreement with this application. I think that would cover some of the proposed
architectural standards that we propose in here. We are fine with that and we will work
with Mr. Nary on getting that at the property time. The one -- the one, I guess, concern -
- and I think that's what some of the neighbors are here for, was the request by your
staff to have the stub street to the north. When we did go through ACRD, that issue
came up, the neighbors that live in these houses to the north did testify in front of the
highway district and the highway district removed that recommendation to the city to
have a stub street. It had to do -- and the neighbors will give you a better
understanding, but it had to do with just the future intent of these -- of this subdivision up
here and the fact that it is Eagle's impact area. They have a larger minimum lot size
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 24 of 136
and so the chances of those redeveloping are really slim. I will let the neighbors gets up
and expand on that. I am going to stop right there and, please, ask me any other
questions you have and we can defer some of those to my engineer on the engineering
issues.
Rohm: That's fine. Thanks, Shawn. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Nickel, the only question I had was in regard to enlarging the lots to the north,
no consideration for the lots on the east?
Nickel: We felt -- and I believe your staff did, too, that it's for the transition, the one acre
lots that we are abutting to the east, we did provide a compatible transition. I'm sorry
that the -- you can't see the lot lines, but I think we are one and a half to one on the ratio
here. I think because these were five acres lots up here, we felt that it was more
appropriate to have some larger lots on the north, but that was the reason for that.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: Just one. I have seen two different layouts and that's the grass strip greenbelt
area on the north. Is that -- one of the neighbors requested that to be removed, but
what -- how did you end up on that?
Nickel: Thanks for bringing that up. We did remove that, so the lots -- these lot lines
now go up to the property line. We originally had a concept of having a pathway back
here to link up to our open space areas here. Per the request of the neighbors we
removed that to provide a little more privacy and so those lots increased size for that
reason also and we removed that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Nickel.
Nickel: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning &Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 25 of 136
Zaremba: The concern raised by Public Works about the need for an access easement
for -- or not access, but I guess utility kind of easement across the outparcel, which,
apparently, now belongs to Spurwing, has anything happened? Any progress or --
Nickel: No. We will be working with Spurwing. That does concern me, making that a
condition that we have to get that easement, because they could can deny us that
easement. So, we will work with your staff. I don't know if they have had discussions
with Spurwing on obtaining that. I do understand the need for that. I don't have an
answer yet. I'd prefer not to have a condition, something that can hold us up if we were
not able to get that easement. I don't know -- and I can find out, I guess. I don't know if
they have to go through any process through Ada County to develop that tennis court,
like a Conditional Use Permit. I don't think they do. But if they did, that might be a time
to possibly get that easement. But we are concerned with that. I just don't have an
answer for you right now.
Zaremba: I guess my question would be is there an alternate -- if that's simply not
possible, is there an alternate way to access the sewage system?
Cole: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the genesis of
that condition in the DA -- this property isn't currently serviceable. It's going to flow,
eventually, to the North Black Cat. You have heard a lot of us talking about the Black
Cat trunk. This would go to the North Black Cat. And it's at the outer reaches of that
North Black Cat. They ask for the permission to run a temporary lift station -- was
granted by one of our staff engineers in Public Works, but the location that they have it
now in the west -- upper northwest corner with outparcel, if we don't have an easement
through that tennis court lot, is what they are calling it, the mains would come up
through the road and we would never be able to take that lift station off line, essentially.
It's possible that we could work another way to reroute the sewer, place the -- place the
lift station in a different lot that would be more accessible, possibly. I'm just worried that
we are setting ourselves for a temporary lift station that's temporary --
Zaremba: Temporary forever.
Cole: --forever.
Zaremba: Is it likely that Spurwing will be sewered to the North Black Cat trunk?
Cole: If Spurwing were to come in and request annexation from the City of Meridian,
they would -- they would sewer to the North Black Cat through mains in their -- there is
a road that runs right through here that the main would come up to serve everything, but
the outparcel is -- I don't want to call it a spite strip, it's a space between where we
would take it off line to get in there to take that off line and I don't know if it has to be an
easement through there, but, definitely, I would like some assurances by the applicant
that they were -- sit down and coordinate with us for some acceptable solution for a
future possibility to take that lift station off line and your wording -- we could definitely
word that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 26 of 136
Zaremba: Thank you.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and I agree with Mike and I think that was
very important. One thing that we can look at and we will work with Mike on, is now that
ACHD is requiring that stub with that right of way to this point right here, it may be
possible to somehow route that and get -- Mike's hearing this for the first time, so -- but
if that stub street is there when this redevelops and, then, again, if the city was to
provide sewer to Spurwing as a condition of that, I think we would have a better chance
if it is in a right of way, of that subbing to the property to get that. And so does that
sound right, Mike?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, yes, I think if we can just reword the condition to something wishy-
washy along the lines of the applicant shall coordinate with Public Works for an
acceptable solution for -- to decommission the lift station at a future time, once gravity
means become available, something of that nature. And I think that we can get
something worked out.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, one final -- Mr. Zaremba, we will also -- and I'll put this on
record. We will also -- we will try to coordinate with Spurwing as it is right now to see if
we can just accomplish it like staff was recommending, but just when we word that
condition if we could have some flexibility.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Nickel: One last thing, Mr. Chairman. Josh, could you put up those pictures that I have
and I just want to show you some the concepts real fast and so we can get those on the
record as well. These are examples of -- and you can just go through them pretty quick.
These are just examples of architectural style for the offices and the TNC. Again,
understand, they are to be two story. I think the intent of that two story concept is to
allow the possibility of commercial downstairs, with residential upstairs. And so that's
something that we could come back at a future time and develop.
Zaremba: I would comment that it doesn't require that, but it does enable it.
Nickel: It enables it. Yeah. Exactly. Mr. Chairman, I put these up. These are
examples of the mews and so if you could imagine our townhouses facing out onto that
grassed area or that grassed area with the ponds, it would be facing this way and, then,
that way with parking in the back through the alleyways. That's why I put this picture up.
These are, actually, taken in Eagle. So, that's the mew with the units facing into that
area. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Okay. At this time I would like to take public testimony,
but before we have anyone come up, is there a spokesperson for the subdivision or are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 27 of 136
you the spokesperson? What is your name, sir? Allen Ward. And could I have a show
of hands for those that he is going to be speaking for tonight? And have any of you
folks signed up on this ledger as well? The point is -- the intent is that you're to
relinquish your time to him, so he will have adequate time to make his presentation. So,
I would appreciate it, unless he does not bring up the points that are of significant
concern to you, that you have, in fact, relinquished your opportunity to speak from the
standpoint that we are giving him extra time. So, with that being said -- and, Mr. Ward,
would you like to come forward, please.
Ward: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Allen Ward. I live a 6598 North Barney
Lane in Brandt Subdivision.
Rohm: I think you will need to speak up just a little bit, sir.
Ward: Allan Ward. I live at 6598 North Barney Lane, Brandt Subdivision.
Borup: Thank you.
Ward: And I do have a few more names to add. You have the letter, I presume, that we
sent? Is that -- did you all get that? I won't read it, but I will refer to it and just kind of
highlight it, if that would be all right. But I would like to start out by -- the first paragraph
there, about halfway down, it's where it says we do not -- it says we do not ask that you
prevent construction. We do not ask that you keep landowners from developing their
property. We do ask that you, please, work in concert with the current residents to help
us maintain the quality of life. So, that's kind of where we are coming from here. The
first item we have is traffic. I guess it doesn't work. Our biggest concern is the amount
of traffic that's going to come through this. The ACHD said that there will be
approximately 3,800 cars a day through this project and our concern for that is because
the proposed access to Linder is very close to our subdivision and we also -- we already
-- okay. This access here is already very close to here, which we are within about 500
feet, I believe -- I'm not for sure on that -- from the intersection already. Traffic is
already backed up past our subdivision, almost down to the bottom of the hill in the
night and in the mornings already, so it's already hard for us to get in and out. And,
then, our understanding is that there is a project going here that has been -- a Wal-Mart
is proposed there. Now, I understand that that's not a done deal, but a big box store is
proposed here, and ACHD says there is going to be a minimum of 10,000 cars there on
this corner, which would be the south -- sorry, southeast corner. Another box store is
maybe going to go there. Another 10,000 cars. This corner here they propose 7,500
cars a day through there. So, that's over 30,000 more cars that will go through that
intersection without improvement. Now, ACHD is going to have a meeting with those
developers to work on a solution with that. But we still have the concern that even they
make this five lanes, that the cars are going to be backed up and so this intersection
they are proposing right here is very close to that it's going to be hard to get in and out.
We already have cars that come down here, turn around here to get back to the light in
our subdivision, which is, basically, a dead end private street. We would also like to
propose maybe that this road here, if it needs to stay there, to stay with this access, that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 28 of 136
it be moved up here and go along here this way with Chinden, landscape buffer, the
road, then, the project that it would back up to the properties here. We are concerned
about safety again for our kids at this busy intersection here. It's already there. The
bus does stop there. They do have to cross one lane of road to get on the bus in the
morning and we are also concerned about if the traffic's backed up, for emergency
response to our subdivision. The next item we have is density. Again, we are
concerned about the density. We would like to propose that the whole project be in one
acre lot developments, with a minimum sized lot of 43,560 square feet, which is a true
acre lot. No commercial. No high density. The reason being for that, because if you
did that you would take approximately 4,000 cars a day through this project down to
less than a thousand cars through that project. So, that would -- I think they could have
a very nice subdivision here that would that match one acre subdivision here, five acres
here, one and a half to two acre lots here. It matches well. They can put some very
nice homes in there. Again, we are not opposed to them developing, just to kind of
match with their -- and, again, also that would eliminate some of the traffic that will be
going through this little street here that's going to be hard to access if they put that in
right there. Let's see here. Again, as the City of Meridian moves west there is a lot of
subdivisions like ours that are free standing, one acre to one acre and a half, two acre
lot subdivisions and I guess we are just saying that this concern will come up more and
more as you move west when you try to put this high density around existing
subdivisions that are like this, it will come up again. We would also like to see that --
maybe that they put a six foot vinyl fence along the subdivisions that are there, six foot
solid. Excuse me. What else do I have here? The concern we have is -- which has
been addressed is these drainage ponds here. We are concerned -- especially this
one, this well to this house is about -- sorry, I can't stop shaking. It's about right there.
About 15 feet off the property line right there. It's concerned that that -- I understand
that they will design those, but it's still very close and if that does happen to fail some
day, then, the drinking well to this property here, plus the others, plus they put them --
these drainage ponds up against existing subdivisions, which are -- I guess we are
proposing that they move those -- these trees and put them either within the subdivision
itself or maybe make one over here against the driving range where there is no houses
here and it would be against the houses if they are building, not against houses that are
already existing. Let's see here. They did -- they did talk to us a little bit and we have
mentioned from day one that this is too high a density for us. They did take these lot
lines out. They said at the first meeting -- my understanding was -- I hope I remember
this right -- they might correct me, but my understanding was that these lots were going
to be half acres here at least and go down there. But the plat that I saw was these are -
- these four or five -- I think there is five or six here now, they will be in the 20,000
range. The rest of these are in the eight to nine thousand square foot range for a lot,
getting a little bit smaller as you go in. I think these are only 9,000 feet. In here they
are in the 8,000 feet. It is my understanding, if I read that right, they might trick me on
that, but that's the way I understand it. And so -- let's see here. We are also concerned
about -- the last item is the irrigation water that we supposedly have for our subdivision
is not there anymore. The landowner that owned this before these developers moved it
to here, saying that he would make it -- it used to come in right here and he moved it
down here last year and, then, these people bought it and he -- when he moved it he
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 29 of 136
told us he would make it right for us and he has not done that yet, the original
landowner. So, we are concerned about getting our irrigation water back to our
subdivision that has been taken away from us. I think that's all I have.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the individual?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Your last statement on the irrigation water, so that was just
-- the ditch was relocated last year after the irrigation season ended?
Ward: No. Actually, a whole year ago -- all last summer we did not have that. In truth,
we have never had a working -- we have never had a working irrigation system to our
subdivision. We have trying to -- for almost 15 years to get the original landowner to
make that so it works right. It's never worked right. If you go to this corner right here,
there is a telephone pole right on the corner that gets run over all the time and there is a
power meter that he never hooked up, that he always said that he would make it right
and he never has. Then, when Lochsa came in, he owned all this property over here.
When he -- Lochsa sold, they moved -- they took our water from here. So, he
redirected us over here somehow and got it to here and last year he ran a gated pipe
that went down there and said if we want water, we just hook into the gated pipe. Well,
okay, that doesn't work too well, so --
Borup: So, why did it not work? Do you have a pipe to your property?
Ward: Well, he was using the gated pipe to irrigate the farm also and, then, he never
hooked it up to our property, though. But it wouldn't have worked anyway. Like we
said, from day one it has never actually worked. He never made it right for us. And so
we are trying --
Borup: So, since -- I mean I'm concerned about why you didn't have water and -- what
has the irrigation company said?
Ward: Settlers says that that has to be fixed before this can be developed is my
understanding also. Now, I don't know --
Borup: But why wasn't that fixed 15 years ago?
Ward: Pardon me?
Borup: Why wasn't it working 15 years ago?
Ward: We couldn't get him to do it. He would never do it.
Borup: So, this property didn't have water before the subdivision was developed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 30 of 136
Ward: We had water to here, to a well -- to a hole in the ground that never worked.
That's always -- it was right in the right of way here and they couldn't swing the power
pole over, because it didn't -- to pressurize it.
Borup: So you've never had water you're saying?
Ward: We've never had water. But if they put this --
Borup: Well, why weren't you concerned about that 15 years ago?
Ward: We are and we have been. That's my point is we have been trying for 15 years
now and Settlers tells us that before this development goes in that that has to be made
right is my understanding.
Borup: Okay.
Ward: That's my understanding.
Borup: Okay.
Ward: Again, I might be wrong, but that is my understanding, the way I understand it.
Borup: Thank you.
Ward: Anything else?
Rohm: Thank you. Larry Woodard.
Woodard: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Larry Woodard. I live on
1701 Almaden, one of the five acre lots just north of this subdivision. And I guess my
single point would be that this entire bench is going to be a fought over area between
three cities and much of it, I think, ought to end up in Meridian. But how you treat this
density will determine whether the rest of it goes, because you are now moving into a
rural subdivision area with large lots and to plunk something like this down with this high
intensity I think is just a bit too much. I would suggest a minimum of half acre lots, quite
honestly. You have got an R-2 zoning that you can have and I would suggest that. And
that's my sole point. And as they have mentioned now, we have meetings next week
across the street on Linder. If this Wal-Mart store is true, you know, Linder is going to
be a major problem. So, that's all I have to add -- offer.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. How about Foad
Rothani? Probably butchered that, but you can correct me.
Rothani: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it makes it easier you can call
Jack Smith.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 31 of 136
Rohm: It would have been easier. Thank you.
Rothani: Foad Rothani, 2273 Rivera Drive, which is also five acres to the north of this
development. And I also speak on behalf of my father-in-law which lives right across
the street from me on another five acre lot. We just got a notice this evening that this
meeting is taking place tonight and he is heading out of town 5:00 o'clock tomorrow
morning, so he couldn't attend the meeting. We are not against the development, but
we are against the density and how the development is proposed to come in this area.
We always knew that it was going come, but we never expected it would be such a high
density. And we have a number of problem -- personally I have a number of problem
with it. One of them is access to the Linder Road. As the previous speakers
mentioned, the access to the Linder Road is too close to the traffic light, too close to the
Brandt Subdivision, and if you compare this one with some of the development along
Eagle Road and also Eagle and Chinden, which would be a lot similar to this, whereas
they have that shopping mall at the city town or something like that, shopping on the
northeast corner, they got the accident in that area just about everyday. I personally
been a witness to a car ending up in the teller's window of the Key Bank. And this is
going to be very similar to that. As the previous speakers mentioned, we have to fight
traffic morning and evening -- many time in the evening, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 o'clock in
the evening traffic is backed up from Chinden all the way to the river. And that's going
to just get worse. I really don't know why we need the access here. Probably even
right -in, right -out, would not solve the problem. Probably a better solution would be to
have a right -in from Chinden and you already have a traffic light on the southwest
corner of this property, which can access to Chinden and that should solve a lot of
problem. The other one thing that were mentioned, density is too high and we truly
expect that a transition zone in that area that is an R-4 density. Transition to me means
we are five acres on the north side and one acre on the east side and the west side,
probably is more appropriate if all the lots on the north side of this property with two
acre lots, but definitely not less than one acre. Same thing on the east and west. And,
then, gradually goes to the higher density as you go south. And, basically, all I am
saying is probably an R-2 zoning is a lot more appropriate, as Larry suggested awhile
ago. And the other concern that I have was the runoff towards the north and the lots
are basically fertilizer washed through this area. On the north side we are on a well and
we have a shallow aquifer. Lots of wells are about 90, 100 feet depth, with additional
wash up from this area if you underground water flow is to our north northwest. So, with
these it is just going to bring additional -- basically nitrate and other ingredients, which
reduces the quality of the ground water in this area. The stub to the north is not going
to work out as the -- I guess the staff recommended. It sounded like they wanted to do
us a favor that in future if we want to develop our property or have an access to
Chinden, that's nice of them, but I don't think anybody in our subdivision really needs or
wants an access to the Chinden. Putting a stub there is going to be an additional place
for partying and drinking and lots of similar things against our property. Plus the CC&R
of our subdivision forbids having -- that subdividing their land in the five acre area.
also suggest probably for -- should some barriers, maybe a higher actual barriers on the
north side of this property to separate that and maybe even north and east, to separate
this property from our property. And, you know, I'm going to -- I go to lots of meetings
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 32 of 136
and with all the offer zoning automatically almost approved in Meridian, you go to the
Kuna, onto the Canyon county meetings, and more and more you hear we don't want to
look like Meridian. And I guess that's not the image that we want to build for Meridian.
So, please, take all of that into consideration and I guess if you want to follow somebody
on the example -- I'm not saying you need to -- please follow Eagle and do to a better
zoning and the smaller density and especially in this area. With everything said, that
definitely warrants smaller density.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Rothani: Thank you very much.
Rohm: At this time Fred Beckman.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, can I just maybe interject while he's coming up. I know that
there is a lot of concern on the density here. That seems to be a common theme. One
of the things that we as Commissioners need to be -- are obligated to look at and to
make our decisions on is the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for this
area on the Comprehensive Plan is medium density residential, which means three to
eight units per acre. This project doesn't even meet the minimum. In past years the city
has even turned down projects because they weren't dense enough. I don't think that's
the direction that this city is looking at going now, but the gross density on this is 2.26,
which, as I mentioned, does not even meet the low end of the Comprehensive Plan
designation for this area. I'm not sure if that was pointed out earlier and I thought it may
be pertinent just to bring that out.
Rohm: Thank you, Chairman -- Commissioner Borup. Fred Beckman is not to speak,
then. Thank you. The next person signed up is Brad Larsen.
Larsen: Brad Larsen. My address is 2305 Rivera Drive. Also in the five acre lots north.
I initially wasn't going to say anything, because my points have been addressed fairly
well by the speakers before me, but I do want to mention with the comment made about
the Comprehensive Plan, since this is the edge of the area that you're interested in,
guess it's interesting me that we had no input on that Comprehensive Plan, as far as I
know, because that density rating that you're talking about is -- is nothing like anything
north of Chinden. There is nothing existing north of Chinden for three or four miles
either way that's anything remotely like this. So, I guess maybe I would just point out in
response that if that's our plan, it doesn't fit with the environment that it's going into, in
my opinion.
Borup: I know there were several public hearings to determine what that should be.
Open public hearings and that were advertised and --
Larsen And that's probably true. My point is the -- this is the first that I realized this was
Meridian's area of impact coming right up against our property. So, I'll just add that.
That's all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 33 of 136
Rohm: And thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Greg Barney. He's gone.
Okay. Ken Mallea.
Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Mallea. I live on
Almaden just to the north of the proposed project. I know our time is short. You have
heard a ton of stuff tonight. Two points I would like to make -- and one the density, Mr.
Chairman. Commissioner Borup, you did talk about the Comprehensive Plan. I point
out to the Commission, as your staff did, the first point that was made is this property is
not in the Meridian area of impact. To me it is ground that has kind of been out in no
man's land, could have been in the City of Eagle. The developer for access to services
is seeking annexation into Meridian. But it is still very much transition ground. What
you approved to the south of Chinden is not controlling for this property. The density
that's being sought is too high, we believe. It abuts five acres on the north, one acre on
the west, and one acre on the east. And just to shoe horn this dense of a project in
between the surrounding larger lots we think is bad planning. That is our position
number one. Number two has been articulated already on the stub out. No one in the
Almaden project to the north is interested in that stub out. This was testified to at the
ACHD meeting. One of the commissioners in particular was interested in that and was
rejected by the ACHD commission. So, again, we think too dense, too many homes.
we do certainly favor residential in that area, but it is a new issue, I believe, for this
Commission and for this city and if you look to the east, every project to the east on
Chinden is one acre minimum. It is perhaps fortuitous that this project can be annexed
into Meridian for access to services, but that should not control all other land use
decisions for this property. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Thank you. Questions?
Borup: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mallea -- and this is more of an informational
question for me, because this comes up a lot and I'm not sure which of the two
subdivisions went in first, but we have got a five acre subdivision and I'm not sure if
there was an objection to a one acre subdivision going in next to it, which was a fifth the
size. Was there concern at that time with the one acre lots going in surrounding a five
acre subdivision?
Mallea: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Borup, the Almaden Subdivision was first,
think it came in in 1970.
Borup: That's what I was wondering.
Mallea: The Brandt Subdivision was approved by Ada County in 1991 and it had a 15
year set side for the majority of the property. No development at all, save and except
for those few lots that you can see on your map. So, the bulk of the property was in 15
year set aside, which from history and from talking to the neighbors who predated me,
they believe that was an acceptable compromise and a good decision by Ada County at
that time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 34 of 136
Borup: So, that's been a common thing for -- yeah, back to that period.
Mallea: Yes, sir.
Borup: And I think part of that, from my understanding, the county's reasoning for that is
they felt that something more dense was warranted and that's why they would allow that
and -- but did require a set aside. Otherwise, they would have been larger lots at the
time, but -- and, again, I ask this kind of for my own information for now and future, not
necessarily putting you on the spot on this, but --
Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I'm happy to be put on the spot. And I think
you're on the spot, really. This is certainly unique ground. I think in my experience --
also have an office in Meridian and do follow the decisions that come before you. I
know it's wild, I know this whole development process exceeds anybody's expectations.
Certainly the Ada County Commission in 1991 did not expect that there would be sewer
service to Chinden through the City of Meridian. I don't think so. I don't think it was
conceived in 1991 that the bulk of this property would be seeking annexation into
Meridian. There was a 15 year development agreement prohibiting any development,
all on the assumption that it would be coming through Ada County, Mr. Commissioner.
So, I think this explosive growth exceeds certainly what I would have expected and I
grew up here.
Borup: I agree with that fully and I think -- I think I share a lot of concerns you have. I
mean if this project come in with eight units per acre, I would have a whole different -- I
would not be open to the development at all in this location. And I think that's maybe
where they have tried to try --
Mallea: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we are hoping to be open to a one acre
density, at least in the transition zones on the west, north, and east. But I realize this is
a tough decision -- or at least I hope it is. I hope you don't feel obligated to simply
approve a project with a density similar to similar projects you have approved to the
south.
Borup: Thank you.
Mallea: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Thank you. I would like to also speak to this Comprehensive Plan just for a
moment before we take the next testimony. And I'm not speaking from carnal
knowledge, but typically the transition from commercial, which everybody wants to see
some commercial development along that Chinden corridor, and as you transition from
commercial, it is desirous to have a little bit more dense right adjacent to the
commercial development than it is as you work your way out to the edges of a
subdivision. So, I just throw that out just so that you can kind of see, as these
developments do occur, there is a transition within the development and maybe the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 35 of 136
transition in this particular development doesn't match the balance of the development
in the area. But, in any case, that's kind of the logic trail as you go through a project like
this. So, with that being said, the next person that is signed up here is Tom Holloway.
Holloway: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tom Holloway. 6735 North
Barney Lane. Also in that Brandt Subdivision there. Major concerns have been
addressed already. the density, of course, is one of the bigger ones. One thought that I
had, as we were going through this -- I wanted to bring up -- get this thing to work here.
Okay. We are talking about the ponds, I believe, which are kind of in this area here.
They are very very close to some of these folks' wells. I mean we are talking -- I think
it's -- pretty sure it's less than the 50 feet that we were talking about earlier at the very
beginning of this session. That's definitely worth taking another look at. And just
another concern is just the -- you know, just the whole density of the project, it just
doesn't make sense with the one acres here, five acres here, and, then, Spurwing over
here with the two -- you know, one and a half up to three acre lots, to have this kind of
density in here. I just -- it just makes no sense to me and I just really want to reiterate
that. So, thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you for testifying. Jim Lee. From the floor he says Mr. Mallea has
already spoken for him. Lindy -- boy, I don't have the last name.
Agare: My name is Lydia Agare and I live on the northeast corner of this proposed plat
and I just wanted to reiterate -- I am not going to repeat the density issue, because I
have an issue with that, but I did want to repeat that the storm drains -- I think that was
a question mark in somebody's mind. We are fine with the storm drains where they are
on the north -- northern part, but I did want to talk a little bit about the three parcels that
are on the north side of this plat. And I think there was discussion about possibly a stub
street and I just wanted to reiterated that all three of these plats, the three people -- the
three acres on the north side, we have no interest in subdividing, so we would rather not
see that happen. And, once again, the density issue, which I'm not going to repeat, but
that is an issue with us. We all have livestock. We all have horses. We enjoy a rural
lifestyle and we would like to keep it that way. And we know that north of Chinden
nothing is less than one acre. So, we would like to keep that the same density. Thank
you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Evelynn Petty. Okay. Thank you. And, again, from the
floor she indicates that she has been spoken for. That concludes the list of people that
have signed up to speak. But at this time anybody else that would like to speak to this
application you're more than welcome to come forward. Seeing none. Mr. Nickel.
Nickel: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, for the record,
Shawn Nickel. I do appreciate the neighbors' concerns. We have met with them and
talked to them about those from the very beginning. I think Commissioner Borup spoke
-- basically said what I was going to state about the density. At 2.26 we are not even at
the minimum of the medium density of the three units per acre from that range of three
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 36 of 136
to eight. I do also agree with you and there is no way I would bring a -- probably even a
five unit to the acre development --
Borup: Good.
Nickel: -- to this area. One of the first things I told my clients in developing this is we do
have to look at the transition and I think we have done an excellent job at that. We are
not going -- we are going to meet the intent of what other people think transition is and
they have been out there and they have had their large acre lots and this going to be a
change for them, do I agree with that. I also think that we have been responsible in
providing them with the large lots up here. We have also agreed in the past to provide
additional buffering in the way of berms, in fencing a long there. If they so desired -- it
didn't sound like they really wanted that. We did take out that common area along there
at their request. As far as the access on Linder, my clients bought this additional piece
of property here specifically so we could move that entrance up as far to the north -- to
the north as possible. Five hundred and fifty feet is our current separation from our
entrance to the intersection. ACHD's requirement is, I believe, 320 -- 340. So, we
exceed that. There is additional to 250 feet from our entrance to the entrance into
Brandt Subdivision. We -- at our ACHD meeting we met with the neighbors outside
afterwards and we did agree that we will work with them on buffering this area right here
and I, actually, will agree to a six foot solid fence along the whole boundary. We will
also work with the neighbors to the north as to what type of fencing they would want
along there. But I believe the neighbors on east and along this area do want a solid six
foot high fence. We will also work with them the landscaping and everything like that.
We do want to provide a buffer. We do understand that that is a major collector --
commercial and residential collector coming into our subdivision. Unfortunately, this is
the only place we can have it to meet the offset. We do have the light. We believe that
this light is going to take the majority of the traffic, especially from the residential that
you can see, the entrance is here, that's a full light, as opposed to coming out and trying
to fight that Linder traffic, which everybody in this room has been in that situation before.
And it, eventually, will get better as the development's occurring. Right now you have
all four of these corners are in some process of development. The area to the west -- to
the east that was spoke of is very early on in the stages of going through a
Comprehensive Plan amendment with the City of Eagle. So, that one is out a little
ways. But I know there is some -- there is some movement on the southeast corner and
you have already heard testimony on the southwest corner from myself and you will
hear it again in a little while about what's developing right here. The reason I'm bringing
this up is we have a unique opportunity to see this intersection build out in a reasonably
short period of time with turn lanes, with proper signalization. I think that's going to be a
plus for everybody out here when we do get a better intersection there and we are going
to see it -- we are going to see the ability for ACHD to get an additional right of way with
the development of this intersection. Now, the lots on the east are a minimum of 10,000
square feet. And, again, the lots north are a minimum of 15,000 square feet and,
actually, some of these are 19 and 20 thousand square feet. So, approximately, a half
acre on these larger ones. Regarding the original development of -- I guess Brandt --
Brandt was one of those nonfarm developments that was developed back in the early
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 37 of 136
'90s by the county. The concept of that was to cluster 25 percent of a property into one
acre lots and leave the remainder open for -- at that time it was a 15 year deed
restriction to wait for city services and annexation to come forward and, then, to develop
at urban density. So, that's exactly what you're seeing 15 years after the fact. You're
actually seeing the properties develop. You're seeing it other areas south -- in south
Meridian, as you're aware of, of these nonfarms coming in for redevelopment. This one
was done right, because it was done -- the larger lots were done up against the major
roads, so they don't have the conflict of the stub street in and out that you sometimes
see with a redevelopment of these -- of these subdivisions. Spurwing was another
nonfarm development that was -- that was approved by the county and you're seeing --
don't know if you have see the application yet, but there is townhouse developments on
their southwest that are starting to come in on portions of their open space that are
starting to redevelop as well and I believe there is request or there is talk of request for
annexation of a portion of Spurwing into the city. So, you're starting to see these areas
redevelop. It's a change. We understand that. Our job is to make sure we do it
responsibly. I think we have done that with this project. I'm proud to bring it in front of
you and I hope you like it and can support approval of it. Thank you.
Borup: I don't think anybody anticipated that it would be 15 years to the day that those
would be -- or to the year at least.
Nickel: If I can address that, I think that's more of a coincidence, because I think you're
actually seeing some that are coming up sooner than 15 years, because they can be
annexed into the city. But, yeah, this is 15 years.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Go ahead.
Moe: Mr. Nickel, your engineer is here. I guess I would like to have someone speak to
the point of the ponds over on the northeast section, if would you, please.
Nickel: Brain would be happy to do that.
Borup: And then -- is that the only question you had?
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: I'm not sure if the others would -- would he also address irrigation water and --
Nickel: Yes, he will.
Borup: Okay. And, then, you just -- I just want to reiterate on the fence. I think there
was one or -- at least one of the neighbors that talked about a fence against Brandt.
Your landscape plan does show a fence there. I couldn't see where it specified what
type, but you're fine on a solid fence, which is what the neighbors requested?
Nickel: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 38 of 136
Borup: And I just want to point out the landscape plan already did show a fence at --
along that property line anyway.
Nickel: Yes, sir.
Borup: That's all I have.
Nickel: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Martin: Commissioners, my name is Brian Martin. I am with Toothman Orton
Engineering. 9777 Chinden Boulevard in Boise, Idaho. I think the first thing to address
is that these drainage areas up here have been incorrectly described as ponds. These
are just simply depressions or infiltration swells, like we have -- they are typical
infiltration swells like we have anywhere else in the valley. And in this case we had
actually located these up in the corners that, you know, particularly to help provide,
actually, some buffering to those larger lots to the north and to the east as well. So,
these -- these swells will probably be on the order of somewhere between three to five
feet deep. They will be grassy swales. They will be landscaped around them. And
they will most likely be dry 95 percent of the time. The -- we did locate -- again, we
located another swale down in this corner. We had another one down in this corner.
One of the property owners had mentioned that he has an existing domestic well, h
individual well, located somewhere in this area, I believe. Those infiltration swales --
yeah, they are going to be designed to DEQ standards for horizontal separation from
any domestic wells and also from any vertical separation from ground water. And in this
case ground water is relatively deep, somewhere between 15 to 20 feet deep, and we
are also going to provide a foot of filter sand as well. So, DEQ standards is three foot
separation. And we are going to have more than that, along with sand filtration. So, in
theory, after it goes through the sand filtration and has three feet of separation from
ground water, it meets those DEQ standards. Concerning the sewer or future sewer <"
easement, we have preliminarily shown a sewer lift station up in this area, up within this
common lot, and we met with Public Works prior to laying this out and we wanted to
comply with the sewer master plan that generally shows sewer services going from east
to west and, then, ultimately, continuing further west to the future Black Cat sewer lift
station. So, what we did was we designed this in general conformance with the sewer
master plan that shows sewer services going from Linder Road up towards a common
low point up here. And so certainly -- we certainly could relocate this if we needed to to
another location, with ACHD's recommendation to provide an access road or a stub
road to this three acre parcel. By all means, if we wanted to, we could easily relocate
this to some other area over in this area to provide a future right of way access to the
north to that parcel. It would be no problem. The irrigation pump, we met with Settler's
Irrigation District and water currently comes across Chinden Boulevard right here in a
pipe and, then, it's an open ditch to this point and it's an open ditch all the way down the
west property line. So, there is an existing pump station down in here and we had
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 39 of 136
anticipated and planned to provide a pressurized irrigation system for this entire
subdivision and we also anticipated providing a couple of pressurized irrigation stubs
most likely somewhere this in location or somewhere up in this location to provide
pressurized irrigation for those guys. So, we have provided pressurized irrigation stubs.
We would size the irrigation pump that we are showing preliminarily up in this area, we
would just size the pumps to handle that. And the last point, as far as the traffic, I also
completely understand that the traffic along Linder Road is very difficult. We had a
traffic impact study done and the location of the road was approved by ACHD. We also,
as a recommendation and as part of the traffic impact study recommendation, they are
recommending a dedicated left turn lane to provide access at least into the subdivision.
Linder Road also is on ACHD -- on ACHD's five year plan and so the design is not
done, but the anticipation is that this entire intersection will be redone, but, then also
Linder Road will be converted into a five lane road in the future. And so five years out
at the 2011 build out, their recommendation is that Linder Road would operate at a level
of C. So, it certainly can handle it. I think with that I will take any other questions you
guys might have.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going back to the pond over there on the northeast area.
Is there any possibility of relocation of that, possibly even just to the west in the narrow
area on the north and just to send a little more lineal to the west and get it away from
that area?
Martin: Away from that corner?
Moe: That is correct.
Martin: You know, certainly by all means we have -- we certainly do have some
freedom to relocate those.
Moe: That's a landscape area; is that not correct?
Martin: That's correct. Yeah. We left that as an open area.
Moe: And you're anticipating what depth of that retention area?
Martin: Again, I think probably three to five feet. Something like that.
Moe: Three to five feet?
Martin: Yeah. And I think that the side slopes on these will not be particularly steep. I
am anticipating somewhere around a four -to -one slope, something like that. Something
that would easily be able to be mowed or be able to be walked on and we are
anticipating having grass in that, as well as any landscape bushes or trees around the
perimeter.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 40 of 136
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Martin: And, again, those -- you know, those drainage swales, they really are not
ponds, they are just depression or just -- you know, they will hold water temporarily
during a design storm, but beyond that they will be dry most of the time.
Moe: I understand that. But I do also have the same concern -- you're doing runoff off
that street into that retention pond and if I was in that neighborhood I would probably
have the same concern as they do.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, a couple -- I would like for you to maybe expound a
little bit more on the irrigation. You talked about pressurized irrigation to Brandt, but
was that ever brought up in a neighborhood meeting or were the neighbors aware of
that option?
Martin: You know, I'm not -- I'm not exactly sure, but I believe that as part of the
purchase agreement that was one of the conditions of their purchase agreement when
the clients --
Borup: To provide pressurized irrigation?
Martin: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. I didn't gather that from Mr. Ward's comments. It sounded like he had
talked about historically -- or supposedly the water should have been delivered
somewhere along Linder Road. And I had understood maybe that was his concern to
get at that point. But I would also think if they have an opportunity to have pressurized
irrigation, that's a much better option than gravity fed, so that's why I was wondering if
they were aware of that.
Martin: Yeah. Apparently, the clients have indicated that the purchase agreement was
actually just to provide irrigation water, but not necessarily pressurized irrigation. In this
case we are already planning to construct a pressure irrigation pump station all the way
around the perimeter of the property, so it would be very easy to provide just a stub and,
then, they could, then, take it if they chose to and provide their own internal pressurized
irrigation main lines if they chose to.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'm still a little concerned on irrigation. I mean when you have
this type of acreage, I think that is an important thing, and I realize the applicant has
done their final, but I would be interested in maybe comments just from Mr. Ward. He's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 41 of 136
the one that brought up that question on the irrigation. If he might like to comment on
the pressurized aspect.
Rohm: Mr. Ward, would you like to come back up, please?
Ward: Okay. You want me comment on the pressurized being put to here to here?
Borup: Well, were you even aware of the discussion of have -- of providing
pressurized? Is that what --
Ward: I wasn't, no.
Borup: Okay. Is that more appealing to you than just an open ditch along Linder?
Ward: My concern with that is is that if they provide pressurized irrigation to us, then,
we will become part of their homeowners. They will require us to pay a fee and we don't
want to get involved in their homeowners. I know of another development they did that
to the guy and homeowner -- on a freebie basis, that was the understanding, and the
development came and cut him off, said you're not paying, we are not going to give it to
you anymore. But that was the agreement of the development. So, we don't want to be
involved in their homeowners by paying fees to have that pressurized irrigation.
Borup: So what is your preference?
Ward: Well, we just want our water back to the point of connection that it was supposed
to be at the first, basically, what we want. And make it work, I guess.
Borup: Well, to make it work, you mean just have it at that location?
Ward: Yeah. We would like to have a discussion on how that will accomplish, what
they will provide us and what will be there and all of that, not just put a pipe with a cap
on the end of it, okay, what are we getting and what --
Borup: Well, what would you expect besides that?
Ward: Well, how it will -- I think we expect it to be delivered in a way that we can use it.
It has never been there before.
Borup: Okay.
Ward: And Brandt was supposed to do that and we just want to know when -- where it's
coming to, where it's going, and how it's going to be -- you know, how it's designed and
all of that.
Borup: One other thing I guess I'm a little troubled with is when a development comes
in they are expected to not interfere with the historic delivery of water to adjoining
Meridian Planning & Zoning ® •
April 6, 2006
Page 42 of 136
properties. But it sounds like there hasn't been any historic delivery of water. So, I'm
not sure how that --
Ward: We -- like I said, we have -- it was to here and --
Borup: So, how have you been watering your properties all of this time? On the well?
Off the well?
Ward: Yeah. We have pipe in the ground and we have a pipe that runs from here,
here, and it connects to all the lots, but this was never powered up to see, for a short
way to put. It was never powered up.
Borup: So, you have pipes through your subdivision?
Ward: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Ward: Yes. We have high volume, low pressure, is what our system was designed,
which would never work anyway. I mean he designed it, but we just want it back,
because we are paying the water fees -- actually, we paid the water fees on this
property last year as a homeowner association here, because it wasn't paid and they
required us to pay it.
Borup: Really?
Ward: Yeah.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Shawn.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. I'm going to try to make this real simple. We
are kind of questioning whether they even have water rights. They haven't had access
water it sounds like for maybe 15 years. We are willing to provide them with water,
either through a pipe or pressurized, and we will work with them to make sure --
Borup: Okay. It sounds like their preference is they have already got pipes through
their subdivision, apparently up on Linder, and they would just like water delivered to
that location.
Nickel: Unfortunately, we didn't really get into that discussion after the neighborhood
meeting, but, again, we are willing to work them and provide that water.
Borup: Provide the water at that location --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 43 of 136
Nickel: Absolutely.
Borup: -- if that's their preference, rather than pressurized? And what's your comment
on -- if they did opt for pressurized -- and I assume they would be part of the
homeowners association at least -- or what -- what would that be?
Nickel: I would imagine if they have an assessment --
Borup: Isn't that -- but the pressurized irrigation would be under -- I assume that would
be turned over to the irrigation district? That's normally what's been happening, so it's
not been a part of the homeowners association.
Nickel: I think in this area it would be in the homeowners association.
Borup: Okay. The irrigation district wouldn't assume ownership?
Nickel: Not on this.
Borup: What irrigation district is it?
Nickel: It's Nampa -Meridian.
Borup: Nampa -Meridian has been doing it.
Nickel: No. This is Settler's.
Borup: Settler's. Okay.
Nickel: Meridian is the ones that usually takes over those.
Borup: Yes. So, Settler's does not.
Nickel: Huh-uh.
Borup: So, if they did have it provided, you would assume that there would be a fee?
Nickel: Well, I think if they're assessed now in any way, that would probably continue.
Borup: Right.
Nickel: As far any other homeowner association fees or acceptance in their
homeowner's association, they would not be part of that. They would just be assessed
whatever water they --
Borup: Just their normal water assessment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 44 of 136
Nickel: Right. And we can make that part of the CC&Rs.
Borup: So, then, the rest of the residents of this subdivision would be taking care of the
maintenance of the pump system and everything at no cost to those --
Nickel: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you. This is has been very enlightening, to say the least. I think at this
point in time it would probably be best to close the Public Hearing and I'd like to get
some final thoughts from each of the Commissioners before we move forward. If
someone would like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-005
and PP 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Let's just go down the row here and get some final thoughts and we will start on
the far end. Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to share some final thoughts?
Zaremba: Yes. I am sensitive to the concerns of the people around that have a lower
density than this project proposes. I think part of the reason that the Comprehensive
Plan ended up indicating the density desirable on this corner is that along the major
corridors -- and Chinden will certainly be more major than it is now, as will Linder.
Linder is one of the only river crossings for a great deal of distance. And most of the
traffic on it is not Meridian to begin with, so we don't have too much control over that.
But in providing a mix of housing in various areas, so people have access to the TNC
area and the C -C area, I believe it is reasonable to have a mix of densities. I agree with
the applicant that they have made an effort to have the larger properties that they are
proposing around their perimeter. And I think that helps with the transition. But I don't
think it would be appropriate to have one acre properties fronting Chinden. That's such
a major corridor that I think the higher density is appropriate. But along with the staff
comments, I, again, think this is one that complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the
ordinances. A couple of details here and there.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I just probably say I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. And I realize -- I mean
the development in the past of Chinden has been in large lot residential, but -- and that's
-- that's on its way to becoming a major thoroughfare linking the counties and, normally,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 45 of 136
that's not the -- not the location for people that want a rural lifestyle is on a -- on
something that's going to be close to a freeway style traffic, but -- and it does seem
appropriate. Of course, we are obligated -- and that's one of our things we are expected
to do is follow the Comprehensive Plan. I might mention the City Council does have
some -- some leeway in that area. They are not -- maybe necessarily feel restricted to
follow the ordinances to the extent this Commission is, but I think that is an obligation
that we should be looking at.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I might mention -- and even though this is not -- this is not someone mentioned
an area of impact. This is not an area of impact, it's referred to as a referral area. It is
an area referral for the city, which is, I believe, probably the first step to becoming part
of the area of impact.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: One of these times I want you to start with me first, if you would, so all the
thunder is not taken care of. But, basically, I'm in agreement with both Commissioner
Borup and Zaremba. A couple things that through the testimony and whatnot, as far as
what the zoning is of this property right now, lot size, basically, you're either anywhere
from double to triple the size of the lots that could have been put in this facility, along
with the amount of housing as well. So, as far as the density question and whatnot,
realize that the neighbors out there would like to see larger lots and whatnot, but based
upon the Comprehensive Plan, this development is complying more so than most that
we do see. I guess the only thing I would question, I do have a concern on that one
pond over on the northeast corner there and I think that I would like to possibly see that
changed. I made comment that I would like to see it possibly moved to the west and
whatnot. I don't know what the location of the wells are at those two properties there
and those two lots there on the north, I don't know whether or not that's really an option
either, but I don't know what -- whether the engineer can reevaluate where that drainage
is in that location and possibly do something different. Other than that, I think they have
done a good job reviewing the mixed use of this property and I like the project.
Rohm: I have wanted to see the City of Meridian expand on some of their horizons to
match some of our neighboring developments to the north, as in the Eagle area. I think,
typically, when you think of Eagle, you think of estate -type development and there is
less of that thought process within the City of Meridian. We are kind of in a different
spot than Eagle is, inasmuch as we are closer tied to Boise and we are closer to the
freeway and there is a lot of things about the City of Meridian that don't necessarily
match up with what's going on in Eagle. But this area right here that we are taking
about tonight is probably in that transition between the City of Meridian and the city of
Eagle and I respect each and every one of you that testified here tonight and I think that
the developers have done a very good job of transitioning, but there are issues still out
there in terms of the lots around the perimeters and I like the fact that they at least have
addressed that, but from my perspective I think that the perimeter lots could possibly be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 46 of 136
a little bit larger and the balance of the subdivision appears to be of -- have some pretty
good thought processes, but I would like to have seen, possibly, a few less lots around
the north and the east side of this subdivision and the balance of it remain as proposed.
But that's my thoughts on it. So, that's my concluding thoughts.
Borup: Can I just make one comment of somebody going through the same thing
personally. I'm in an acre subdivision. A year or two ago an adjoining subdivision was
coming in. I know -- and there was a lot of neighbors in our subdivision that were
concerned about that. One end of this having townhouse lots and, you know, eight,
eight and half thousand foot lots abutting our acre lots, and they -- the talk at that time
was affecting our property values, you know, bringing down the neighborhood type of
thing. A year later when the houses went in, the complaints from the people in my
neighborhood was, well, these are four and five hundred thousand dollar homes, they
are going to raise our tax valuation and, you know, it was just the opposite of the
concern previously. And I'm not saying that's what's going to happen here, but, you
know, I'm saying this was in a neighborhood subdivision that had eight to maybe nine
thousand foot lots and that was the result in that situation.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I want to point one more thing out on --
this is the revised drawing. It's not the one that the applicant submitted. This was one
that their engineer got over to me today. I pointed out most of the changes. I did also
want to just note, there are -- they did add three additional lots here in the overall
makeup. So, this -- it cannot be approved as shown here. What staff would
recommend is if they just plat one lot where those four townhouse lots that they have
added right here are and, then, they can come back in and do a preliminary/final plat in
the future, but just -- once you notice a project for a certain number of lots, you can
reduce lots and that's fine, you just can't add lots. So, I would just ask that you --
depending on the motion, that you not approve anymore lots than the 126 -- whatever
that is that was originally noticed for, just to call that out. It was based on staffs
comments and I appreciate them making those changes, but we just can't press it on
with more lots than what they originally showed, so --
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb.
Borup: I just double-checked. They eliminated one on the north and added three along
Chinden -- or added four along Chinden, so a net gain of three. So, Mr. Hood, you're
saying, then, a motion would have to just state the number of lots as in the application
and leave it at that?
Hood: Yeah. If you reference the original, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Borup, if you
just -- if you reference the original preliminary plat submittal and all the conditions -- the
applicant's already met two-thirds of the conditions in the staff report and they just -- we
usually don't see that, you know, before the hearing, so it really reflects a lot of the
changes that staff already required. I wasn't expecting to see that one so soon and I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 47 of 136
wasn't sure if maybe a couple of lots would maybe get taken here and there and you still
end up with that same net density anyways. It's not a problem at this point. I will have
to reiterate this again to the Council, but those four lots need to be just one for now and,
then, they can come back in and re -subdivide that into the four townhouse lots, with a
preliminary/final plat, but --
Borup: But I assume we would want to make reference still that one lot was being
eliminated on the north?
Hood: And that's a condition of approval right now in the staff report.
Borup: Okay. That's right.
Rohm: Would somebody care to make a motion?
Zaremba: I, actually, would ask one more question first of staff. To add language about
working with Public Works to provide a way to take the lift station off line eventually, is
that something we would add to paragraph 2.1 under the Public Works Department or
should that be a separate --
Cole: It would be page 11 in the -- it would be changeable at number 11 of the DA.
Zaremba: The DA.
Cole: I rewrote that, if you would like my wording, or are you comfortable?
Borup: Did you say page 11 ?
Cole: Page 11.
Borup: And which page 11, the first 11?
Cole: Yes. The first page 11. 1 don't see any bullet points on the first page 11.
Cole: Up at the top third.
Rohm: That's bullet item 11 on page 11.
Zaremba: Oh, yes. Okay. I got it.
Borup: Okay. They were numbered. Not a bullet point.
Zaremba: It's requiring them to get an easement across the --
Borup: So, we could leave it like that and, then, add: Or other arrangements as --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 48 of 136
Zaremba: As approved by Public Works.
Borup: Did you say you already had something worked out?
Cole: I think that would -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think that what you just
mentioned is, essentially, what I had. Get the easement through the parcel or
coordinate an acceptable alternative to decommission the lift station.
Rohm: Works for me.
Cole: I thought while I had the microphone to speak to Commissioner Moe's -- maybe a
condition that the applicant comply with all DEQ separation requirements and best
management practice policies, so that they would have to have that separation of that
southeasterly detention pond that you seemed to worry about.
Moe: I guess one other issue I would like to speak to and get comment on and that
would be the stub street to the north. After listening to testimony tonight, it seems to me
that the property owners to the north have no interest in having that there and I guess it
would be my opinion that we go ahead and delete that out of the motion to put that in,
that, basically, think at least two of the owners made the statement they didn't want it
and if, in fact, it wasn't there, it would have been their decision not have it if they so
desired to sell off property or do something down the road. So, that's in Exhibit B, page
two, 1.1.8. See that one?
Borup: Yeah. I already -- where was your -- the drainage area?
Moe: That's a good point.
Borup: And, then, Commissioner, was that -- it sounded to me like you wanted to go
beyond the DEQ requirements? Is that what you're thinking or --
Moe: I think if we just make sure that we have the wording in regard to the DEQ we are
okay.
Borup: I'm not sure if it is referenced anyway. Well, here we go.
Rohm: I think we can stipulate that they have to --
Borup: Yeah. Page five, 2.11, is that --
Rohm: -- comply with DEQ.
Moe: Is that 2.11?
Borup: Yeah. Would that be the proper place?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 49 of 136
Moe: Well, it's actually --
Borup: It already says that.
Moe: Yeah, it does.
Borup: It already says that.
Moe: I'm fine with that.
Borup: Okay. I will give it a try, then.
Moe: We need to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Didn't we do that?
Rohm: Yes. The Public Hearing has been closed.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004, as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of March -- of April 6, 2006, and the preliminary plat
dated January 3rd revised -- what's the revised plat date? Did we want to include that?
Leave the original. Okay. Revised January 27th, with the following modifications to
conditions of approval: Add to -- under the development agreement, page 11, item --
under the development agreement, item number 11, add at the end: Or coordinate
acceptable alternative with the Public Works Department.
Zaremba: For the purpose of decommissioning the --
Borup: Right. And that's what -- that -- well, that's fine. We will add that. For taking the
temporary lift station off line as gravity sewer is available. Then, your -- the DEQ
question got answered and there wasn't anything else, was there?
Moe: Yes. The stub street.
Borup: Oh, yes. Then, also, on Exhibit B, page nine, 7.7, eliminate that whole
paragraph, which makes reference to a stub street to the north.
Hood: Mr. Chairman? Sorry. Mr. Borup, the condition's actually 1.1.8 in Exhibit D.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 50 of 136
Borup: I'm sorry. I did the one under ACHD's -- I marked them both. Eliminate on page
two, paragraph 1.1.8 -- the one I referenced earlier was the reference in the ACHD
report. So, eliminate that entire paragraph. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 to include all staff comments with amended as
stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? So, there is three, four, and
one opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Typically we are take a break at 9:00 o'clock and we are way beyond that. So,
we are going to take a 15 minute break. Thank you.
(Recess.)
Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. And before we open up the next one, I'd like to
restate that Items 18 and 19, referring to Tanana Valley Subdivision, have both been
continued to the June 1st hearing, so they will not be heard tonight. So, anyone that
might be here to listen to that will have to come back on the 1 st of June.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of
Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-005 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01
acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea
2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Rohm: That being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on Knighthill
Center Subdivision, AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This item was
continued from March 2nd due to the fact that ACHD had not given their approval yet. It
did go to the ACHD commission. Just a quick summary. They did request annexation
and zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to the C -G, General Retail and Service
Commercial, and preliminary plat approval of four commercial building lots at the
southwest corner of Chinden and Linder. ACHD did approve the application with no
changes. Staff doesn't really have any further comments. We did have a full discussion
on this item last time. I don't have anything in my notes as far as changes that the
Commission wished to see. I think with that I will take any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 51 of 136
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. And it didn't come to me while reading these
materials, it came to me while reading the later item that we are going to have on
Lochsa Falls. Even though it clearly says on their plat and the staff comments clearly
say that West Everest is a private street, I didn't get the impact of that until I was
reading the Lochsa Falls one. Not being a public street means that Lochsa Falls or
some homeowners association is responsible for maintaining that and takes on the
liability for anybody that uses it. It's not a public street. I don't think we can assume that
this project can just attach to it. I think we need to ask for a cross -access agreement
there. It seems to be that it would be in the benefit of both parties, not only for Lochsa
Falls to have access to this project and, therefore, access to the public street beyond it,
but I would think we need to have that in writing as a condition as well.
Wilson: I think we would agree.
Zaremba: That was my only comment.
Rohm: Good comment. Shawn, would you like to come forward, please?
Nickel: Hi again. Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. The
only thing I have to add -- if staff will put the picture on the screen. Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay had asked me to bring back -- and, of course, she's not here -- an
elevation of -- if you recall, the backside of that building -- if I can find my pointer.
Zaremba: I was going to bring it up on her behalf, so thank you.
Nickel: The back side of the building -- this is the -- she was concerned with the private
road that comes out of Lochsa and what that elevation would look like on the back
there. This is an elevation of the scenario over off of Fairview in Meridian at Fairview
and Eagle -- I'm sorry, McMillan and Eagle in Boise, the same scenario with that
elevation. So, can you go back to the first picture again? This is an Albertson's in
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and if you look at this style, this is the style that that
development is going to -- our development is going to be patterned after, so -- with the
cobbles and the large timbers. Go to the next one, please. What we are going to do on
that backside -- and as you know on the site plan we have got the store frontages that
come around and, then, the backside will be the large box. So, what we will do is we
will provide elements of the same rock type along these areas right here to kind of break
up that elevation. I think that will beautify that a lot more than your typical back of a big
box store.
Zaremba: Dress it up a little bit?
Nickel: In addition to screening the trash areas and the utilities and all that. So, I hope
that addresses Mrs. Newton-Huckabay's concerns.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 52 of 136
Zaremba: I think she will be happy with that. Thank you.
Nickel: Okay. That's all I have.
Zaremba: I don't know whether this has come up in your own thinking or not. Have
there been any discussions with Lochsa Falls about being able to use their private
street? Connect to it?
Nickel: Yes, there have, and cross -access agreement -- we have got a verbal
agreement for the cross -access and that will, obviously, be --
Zaremba: Okay. So, you wouldn't have a problem with a requirement that there be a
written agreement?
Nickel: No.
Zaremba: Okay. Thanks.
Nickel: Thank you.
Rohm: Good. Feel kind of at a loss here. We are only five minutes into this. Okay.
There was nobody that has signed up for this application, but at this time if there is
anybody that would like to come forward and speak to this application, now is the time.
Seeing none, maybe we could get a motion to close the --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-006 and PP
06-005, relating to Knighthill Center Subdivision.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close Public Hearing on AZ 06-006 and
PP 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Assuming we had pretty thorough discussion on it and what we were waiting
for was the response of ACRD, which apparently is concurring with what was already
there, I would be prepared to make a motion.
Rohm: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 53 of 136
Zaremba: Okay. After -- let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-006
and PP 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006,
with the following modifications: In Exhibit B, under site specific requirements, I would
add a paragraph 1.2.12, asking that the applicant provide cross -access among their
own lots. I would -- which I believe they have already agreed to. I would add a
paragraph 1.2.13, asking that the applicant provide signage that indicates there is an
exit towards West Everest Lane somehow, which I believe they have also agreed to.
And I would add a paragraph 1.2.14, that they will provide evidence of a cross -access
agreement to use West Everest Lane, I believe it is, and provide evidence of that to staff
by ten days before the City Council hearing. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, include all staff comments, with -- as amended
by verbal discussion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Let's do that
again.
Zaremba: I missed that.
Borup: All ayes.
Rohm: Let's do that again.
Zaremba: Sorry.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Thank you. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-004 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8
(167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45
acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden
Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing
Subdivision:
Rohm: Pay attention. All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ
06-004 related to the Tree Farm and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item is also a
continued item. I will not go through the whole description of the project again, but it is
approximately 358 acres on the north side of Chinden. Mixed use development. It is
just an annexation application. It was continued for, really, two specific reasons. There
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 54 of 136
were two issues that were brought up at the last hearing. The first there was several
issues in a letter from counsel representing the Rabehls who own this four or five acre
outparcel. That was one of the issues is what is the boundary of that parcel. As I
mentioned, their counsel also brought up some other issues. Our legal staff, as well as
Tree Haven's legal counsel, has addressed those issues in a subsequent letter that
should be part of the packet this evening. The second real issue is Basco Lane and
getting a future public street down across the Phyllis Canal to the Aldape property on
the north side of the Phyllis Canal. More specifically, who owns the property -- see if I
have a good map up here -- in question. The applicant has broken this, really, down
into five different segments for purposes of explaining who owns these areas or what
they have found out since the last hearing. I also followed that up with a phone call to
the Ada County assessor's office. I did find out that all of those areas, actually, the bill --
the tax bill is being sent to MDC's office on Chinden, I believe it was, is their -- the
location of their headquarters or their office. I don't know who has been paying it, but at
least the Ada County assessor seems to think that they own all of that area. There
were several changes in the staff report. Most of them dealt with cleaning up some of
the things we talked about before in the memo. A couple of them are new items or
modified even further items, now that this new information has been presented. There
still is a question of who owns parcel four, Tree Haven or MDC or the previous owner.
They are not all the same, but they all do -- they have agreed -- the applicant has
agreed to include all of the parcels one, two, three and five within the annexation
application, as it does appear that they own those areas. Now, that gives you -- that
gets you right to the top of bank of the Phyllis Canal, which is owned, it appears, in fee
simple, by the irrigation district and, then, again on the north side of that would be the
Aldape property. So, that's kind of up to speed on what I have found out. I did have a
chance to meet with both the applicant and the owners of the TECO One parcel that are
on either side of the existing Basco Lane, as well as a representative from the Aldape
family, last week, I believe it was, maybe even the first part of this week. I can't
remember. They are all running together. But, anyway, did have a chance to meet with
them. There were a couple of things in the staff report that I am really asking you to
make a decision on. I have not formulated a decision on who should be responsible for
construction of a road to the north. It's a little bit different situation than the typical stub
streets that are a pretty common requirement of developments. In this case what the
subject applicant owns is on a steep slope and you really can't build a road, you know,
right on the edge of a mountain side. However, the TECO One properties don't touch
that. So, there is a little bit of who should be responsible to get access to the Aldape
property. In my mind that is still an outstanding issue. Probably, really, the only
outstanding issue. The applicant did submit a letter and they have another clarification
in the staff report -- staff report to condition 16. It's, really, more of a clarification. They
are willing to dedicate the additional right of way that -- the width of that parcel three
does go down to about 40 feet -- kind of necks down to 40 feet in here. They have
agreed to turn that over to -- excuse me -- ACHD or TECO One when it's ready to
become a street and only for that purpose, to be a street to go down -- down the hill and
back down towards the river to the Aldape property. I thought that that's pretty much
how the condition is worded. I'll let you look at that letter that was just dated yesterday
from the applicant. That's the only thing in here that I see that they did clarify, I guess,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 55 of 136
that they are working with the Anderson and Thomas parties on relinquishing that
easement that -- you may remember they have this -- I think it was 2001, this easement
that was recorded over Basco Lane saying the people that are using it now can
continue to use it, but we reserve the right to limit its future use as a public street and it
gave these two individuals, I believe they are, the ability to stop any public -- that from
becoming a public street in the future. So, it says they are working with them on that.
And, again, they are agreeing to bring in the Jayker parcels that are five, one, three and
two into the annexation application, so there aren't any county outparcels. We are
annexing everything it appears that MDC/Jayker/Tree Haven owns. So, everyone is a
party to that. I think those are probably the biggest things that are still outstanding. I
did also receive just at the break from White Peterson some additional information on
the property dispute on the Rabehls -- back to the Rabehls for just one second. On the
Rabehls property. I haven't had a chance to fully go through it. It looks like there was a
record of survey that was recorded back in the day anyways. But that is something that
the deed that the applicant has provided is usually -- in fact, always what we go off
when we annex properties. If there is a dispute and it turns out that we have annexed
something that we shouldn't have, we can sure go back and re-record an ordinance
after that's been decided and the property line gets figured out exactly where it is legally
and who owns what, we can sure go back and re-record the ordinance and get it
squared away. But, again, the applicant has provided deeds. This is -- there is new
information, but I did want you to know that I did receive this and I believe Mr. Nary has
a copy as well yesterday from White Peterson. With that I think I will stand for any
questions, if you have any, and the other refreshers, but that's, really, where we ended
up last time was how do we get an access and who is responsible north and kind of
addressing some of those. Commissioner Rohm, I think, wasn't comfortable with just
getting a 22 page or 20 some page letter from an attorney and not having a chance to
fully review those provisions in there. So, I believe that's why it was continued last time.
But some, if not most of those, have been addressed and I will stop talking and stand
for questions.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I also appreciated the opportunity to read several
different large documents that we got at the last minute and to have that opportunity to
consider them. Let me ask staff one question, if I may. There was another subject and
it's addressed on page 14, paragraph 13. This is elements that would be in the
development agreement and there is an added last sentence that says note if any
existing structures. I'm assuming that that's the applicant's request not to have to move
the red barn, which currently exists and is a nice attractive building and it's still a useful
building, but might infringe on a buffer to Chinden. Rather than say any existing
structures and, essentially, any landscape buffer, can we be more specific? I would say
if the existing red barn encroaches -- I'd like to be -- I agree with them on the red barn,
but I'd rather not just say anything they find out there that encroaches on the landscape
buffer can remain.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 56 of 136
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that's the intent. However, there
may be other structures that they need to keep that may or may not encroach into the
landscape buffer on Chinden. You may ask them that question, if that clarification
works for them or not. I'm not sure if anything comes up close to the road or not. I have
not studied this site in depth and don't remember if there are any other structures. That
sure makes sense if this is the only one we are talking about or even to clarify along
Chinden or something.
Zaremba: If there are others.
Hood: Yeah. And define those. I think that's a great point, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Anything else?
Zaremba: Not at the moment. I need to hear the public testimony. I probably will have
more discussion.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
O'Neal: Do you have one of the pointers? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
my name is Derrick O'Neal representing Tree Haven, LLC, tonight. My address is 2242
East Riverwalk Drive, Boise. I'm going to let the presentation load, I guess.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, while that's happening, I -- maybe just Mr. -- and I don't know
about how the other Commissioners feel, but since we have already had a hearing, the
main thing I would be interested in is the -- is the access to the north, the road -- the
stub street and potential -- I think most of the other questions have probably been
answered, but that's one of the main things I'm interested in to --
O'Neal: I'll try to focus on that. I think I can go through it pretty quickly of the things that
we thought you wanted us to focus on. So, the first issue was the Rabehl outparcel. If
you can go to slide one.
Borup: Right. Yeah. And that was the other one.
O'Neal: And that is this parcel right here. There has been a discussion about the
appropriate boundary and property there and I think Caleb's remarks reflect where we
are on that, is that we have taken the warranty deed and what's of record and that's
what we have used for this application. That's what our legal counsel has advised us to
do and I believe that the city attorney could comment on that as well. As it relates to the
second issue that was brought up with the Rabehls, there was a 23 page letter that was
given to the Commission prior to the last hearing. We have taken the opportunity in the
time that we had to review that. We have presented a response to you in packet from
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 57 of 136
our legal counsel and I believe the city attorney has also reviewed that. So, those are
two issues with the Rabehls. Lastly, we received yesterday another letter from the
Rabehl's attorney Mr. Gigray. We have had a chance to review that and a couple of
comments. They mentioned that they would be willing to withdraw their complaint if we
agreed to some specific conditions and restrictions on the annexation and rezone. We
have reviewed it, we feel we cannot agree to the requests as they may be too restrictive
to ours and potentially the city's flexibility with the property's most appropriate use in the
future. And that's where we are on that. There was a condition there that stated they
would like to have the right to farm condition and I don't think that's our choice, I think
that's a -- that's something that needs to be put in. We are totally comfortable with that.
It can be put on the plat or where ever. That's not really our choice. We are
comfortable with that. Lastly, I think it is important that we have been trying to work with
the Rabehls and I believe they have been trying to work with us. I think there is just a
difference of opinion. They have offered to sell the property to us. However, they have
offered to do that for 1.5 million dollars, which is about 375,000 dollars an acre or
300,000 dollars an acre, and we just can't economically make that work. It's not
feasible. Subsequent to that they have decided to put the property on the market and it
is currently listed for sale for 1.5 million dollars. So, that's where we believe we are with
the Rabehl issue. As it relates to Basco Lane and the surrounding property ownership,
again, this is the other outparcel, the TECO One parcel and, then, below the rim is the
Aldape property. And the question -- the property in question is what we refer to as the
gulch. And you might go to the next slide. And this probably isn't the best description,
but we are trying to help you visualize this. The red line is, actually, the defining top of
the slope of what we define as the gulch. And this is going from Chinden Boulevard
across over to the Aldape property. There currently is -- if you look in that blue line,
that's a current road that they use to access the property. This property here is what we
call the North Gulch and that's parcel four and what was referred to in your materials
that we will refer to in a second, parcel three, I'm sorry, and, then, this is parcel four.
Those were some of the properties that were in question. And, then, you can see the
grove of trees and that's how that works. So, you go to the next -- not the next one,
Jason, but the following one. Two slides from here. Next -- just leave it there for a
second. This is also showing the topography. These are two foot contours, so you can
see why it is defined as a gulch and why the road is there. That is the only place that a
road can really go. And, then, you can see this other property, which was in discussion
on the map, but it didn't show. The topography is very steep and this was the parcel
that was requested to be researched. So, that's a very steep slope between the canal
and the TECO One property. You can go to the next parcel. So, to take that a little bit
further -- and this explains it. We have done a lot of legal research, done a lot of title
research and I think we -- we have agreed on a few things with TECO One and Ewings
that, in fact, Jayker Tree Farm owns parcel five and one and MDC owns two and three
up to right here. We have agreed, as Caleb stated, to include those in our application.
Tree Haven, LLC, does not own it, but we have got MDC and Jayker Tree Farm to
agree to do that. Parcel four we could spend the rest of the night talking about. That
actually goes to the early 1900s when three gentlemen sat down and went through a
process of determining who should get what side of the gulch and it is not clear. Our
legal counsel -- our title company won't insure that Jayker or MDC has ownership to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 58 of 136
that. We are not comfortable that we can claim ownership to that and I believe the
TECO One folks have done their research and they concur with that. So, that's where
the ownership is on number four. We have agreed, however, to take whatever action
necessary, as outlined in our letter dated April 4th, to allow any property controlled by
MDC or Jayker to be used for right of way for access down to the Aldape property. If
there is any property necessary to do that, we have agreed to do that. And it can be
dedicated to them or TECO to a collector road status. We have also agreed -- next
slide. We have also agreed -- and this isn't the best slide, but this is the access from
Chinden. This road here is designed as a full collector to our functional boundary right
here, which is right before it goes down to the gulch. We have agreed to provide a fully
serviced collector road, fully landscaped, all utilities, sewer, water, et cetera, including
signalization at the Chinden Boulevard to this point. So, that would be fully serviceable
to the TECO One property and to the gulch area. And our estimate -- current estimate
that's about 3,100 feet and that's a two million dollar -- plus or minus dollar cost to us.
So, we believe we are providing significant access and improved access there. Caleb
was also correct in the statement that -- that we have not agreed and is reflected
appropriately in the staff report, we have not agreed that we feel that it should be our
responsibility to build the road from here to here. Tree Haven, LLC, does not own that
property. We believe we are to our functional boundary, which is where the project
starts and stops. We are delivering a full service collection. So, that's one thing we
have not agreed on. That really is the highlight of those two issues. I did have some
clarifications that were outlined by Caleb. Just an update for you. The infamous
Anderson -Thomas agreement, we do have a draft of an agreement for that. That's in
process right now. We have agreed to stipulate that we will be happy not to have a final
plat recorded until that is done. We are not going to wait that long, we are in process
with it, but things take time and we are in that process. But don't record a plat unless
that's done and I think it takes care of that issue. And then --
Zaremba: Can you specify what the new agreement is likely to say?
O'Neal: Yeah. I would -- it would relinquish that easement to MDC and the restriction
there. So, it wouldn't restrict access down there. And I think the other ones I'll just go
through them, because I think we need to clarify them. But condition 12 we would just
like to have clarified that we think Basco Lane is the most logical place to get down
below the rim for various reasons and there is a condition that states that if that doesn't
work, it needs to move to the western boundary of the TECO property. We are not
comfortable with that for various reasons, not to say the least which is there is over a 50
foot embankment that would have to be cut through to get down there. We just want to
say that we will do that. The condition states that that -- if Basco Lane doesn't happen,
that would be there. As long as it says that Basco Lane will unreasonably be withheld
by other parties or the highway district, we are totally comfortable with that. And, then,
lastly, a clarification. It said that we would -- on condition 16 we would quitclaim any
right we have to properties at TECO One. We are happy to do that, if in the event that
it's used for public right of way. We are not just going to quitclaim it to them if it's not
used for a public right of way. We just wanted to make that clarification, which is parcel
four. And, then, Commissioner Zaremba, on condition 13, 1 think largely that is the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 59 of 136
intent. However, with that facility out there, there is some irrigation pumps and other
materials that would change the use of that. So, we wanted to make sure that we don't
just say the red barn, there are some other affiliated entities. And we can get specific. I
can't do that tonight, but we could get specific with exactly what additional items there
would be there, but --
Borup: But that's the only building, as far as you know?
O'Neal: There are some other buildings, but I'm not sure they are -- they are closer
than the red barn. I'd have to defer to Mr. Carnahan, the owner of Jayker nursery.
Zaremba: Well, to cover the pumps and stuff, would it be comfortable to say that what
we are referring to here is the red barn and the equipment that --
O'Neal: Yeah. Yeah. Associated -- yeah. That would be great.
Zaremba: Associated equipment.
O'Neal: That would great.
Zaremba: Okay.
O'Neal: So, I think, in essence of time, I went through that pretty quick. I probably
missed a few things, but I know there is some other discussion tonight. Lastly, I just
would say we have been focused on some real specific issues, which I think are very
legitimate, but we are really excited and believe staff is excited to be put in front of a
signature community that I think is going to be great for the City of Meridian and we are
looking forward to moving through these issues. So, I will stand for questions. We do
have our legal counsel here if you have questions for them as well.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one that I have.
Rohm: Go ahead.
Borup: And, then, this is more of clarification. I think I understand what you said, but I
did want to maybe repeat it one more time. You're saying you would be putting in a
public road to this point here, which will connect to the existing road that's been
accessing the Aldape property?
O'Neal: Yeah. I will connect to that existing --
Borup: So, they can still get to their property --
O'Neal: Absolutely.
Borup: And the only difference now they will have a paved road to get there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 60 of 136
O'Neal: Well -- and I think the difference is that we will be providing sewer, water,
power, utilities --
Borup: Yeah. Right.
O'Neal: --to future developments.
Borup: So, they will still have their historic -- they will still have the same access as they
have had all along.
O'Neal: Absolutely.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Tuck Ewing.
Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing representing TECO One, LLC. 1500 EI Dorado,
Boise. We have had a few meetings with the developers on this project and I'd like to
start off by saying we are still in support of the project as a whole. As Derrick had
mentioned, probably as far as TECO One is concerned, the biggest issue we have is
Basco Lane and -- can we go back, Caleb, to that -- that one. Yeah. That will work.
We have also done the research on trying to track back a lot of the ownership interest in
that area and it is very complicated and I commend the developers. We cannot find
anything to dispute anything that they have come up with to this point. Obviously, as
you can see on this map, with the new things that we have found, TECO One -- TECO
One's parcels being here and here, are, in a sense, an island in this sense and do not
touch to the property owners to the north. And TECO One's issue is also with parcel
four being here with no ownership that we can find or we don't know who owns that to
this point. Obviously, probably, the party that has the most rights to it, as far as we are
concerned, is MDC or Tree Haven, due to the fact that they have paid taxes and have,
in a sense, represented that they have owned it until recently where it was found out
that they didn't. We have got the letters from Tree Haven stating the fact that they
would concede any right of way that was necessary to make that road go down and,
then, it would be the responsibility of ultimately TECO One to get it the rest of the way
down and halfway -- potentially halfway across the Phyllis Canal. At this point TECO
One doesn't believe that it's their responsibility to extend this down the gulch and
ultimately because we do not touch the neighbors to the north and we have expressed
verbally -- not in writing, but verbally that we would be willing to do the same thing that
Tree Haven is willing to do and dedicate whatever area that TECO One owns directly to
ACHD to accommodate that collector road, so that they could fulfill their requirements to
their neighbors to the north. So, TECO One feels like that they are being more than
reasonable by dedicating that area to the development, so that they could get that
access to their neighbors to the north, just due to the fact that TECO One feels that if
we did not go as far as saying that, that this development still needs to get that access
to their neighbors and I don't think that they can do that at this time. I don't think that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 61 of 136
have got far enough along to fulfill that requirement. Parcel four definitely is a big
concern to us and, like I said, I do believe that we -- TECO One has absolutely no claim
to that property. I don't think that we could go in and make a claim towards that
property. We have never felt like we have owned it and as Derrick stated, MDC or
Jaykers don't feel they own it, but we feel that they have a much better claim to go get it.
It is approximately a quarter of an acre. Obviously, it does sit approximately where the
road is now and where potentially the road could be in the future. So, there is really no
worth to it. I think TECO One's biggest concern, ultimately, is a financial one, obviously,
and we have got a development in Tree Haven of 350 plus acres and ultimately they are
-- and the way we see it are pushing this access point onto us, which is nine acres and
also could potentially include a portion of a bridge across the Phyllis Canal and TECO
One doesn't feel that, number one, it's fair or feasible for the nine acre piece to have to
accommodate that when a 350 acre piece with many different uses on it probably could
manage it considerably better throughout -- with the big scheme of things.
Borup: Well, I'm confused. I don't see where in this application where it says that
TECO One is required to do that.
Ewing: Well -- where it says in which application?
Borup: Anything that's been -- other than what you have said. There is no requirement
for TECO One to extend that, is there?
Ewing: Well, there -- Tree Haven is basically saying that they are going to give us a
stub road to right here and at such future time that -- if we do anything with ours, we
have to give -- and, then, once they give us a stub road to there, it's our responsibility to
get the road the rest of the way to Aldape property.
Borup: Well, I don't think they have said that.
Ewing: They haven't?
Borup: Not that I have heard. They are saying they are -- they are bringing the road to
their northern boundary.
Ewing: And if they are willing to do that and they will get up and testify to that --
Borup: He just did.
Moe: That's what I heard as well, that they were going to take it to the north property.
Ewing: This being the north property?
Borup: No. They don't own that property.
Moe: They don't own that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 62 of 136
Ewing: Well, they do own this property.
Moe: No, they don't.
Borup: No.
Ewing: What?
Borup: That's what you just got through explaining to us.
Ewing: No. They own this property right here.
Borup: That's parcel three?
Ewing: Yes. And parcel two and Jaykers Tree Farm, which is an affiliate of MDC or --
Borup: But their testimony was that they did own parcel three, it was owned by MDC
and Jaykers. That's what Mr. O'Neal just said previously when he was up here.
Ewing: That is correct. Okay. It's owned by MDC. Parcel three and parcel two is
owned by MDC. That's correct.
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: So, what's you're question? MDC is the one that's selling to Tree Haven.
Borup: But Tree Haven is the one that's doing the application. They own to this
property line. They are bringing the road to that property line. They are not requiring
anyone else to extend it. They are bringing it to the historic Basco Lane and what
happens after that is up to someone else.
Ewing: So, Council is willing -- or is willing to let basically MDC cut this portion off here
and retain that area of land?
Borup: No. I think we have even addressed that. I don't think that's even being
addressed. They are just annexing it -- asked for annexation is all.
Ewing: I agree and I think one of the questions -- or one of the concerns were if you're
going to annex, annex everything that you own, which is going to include this area and
this area and this area. Basically parcels five, one, two and three. We have come to an
agreement that they potentially may not own four, which is just that area right there, but
they do own one, two, three and five, and so they -- by they I mean MDC or Jaykers.
There is five and one --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 63 of 136
Borup: But all they are doing is annexation. They are doing -- they are not asking for
any development. They are not asking for a plat. They are not doing any development.
All they are asking is annexation is my understanding.
Ewing: Annexation and not a concept plan?
Borup: No.
Ewing: Well, if this council wants to agree -- if it's just an annexation thing, I -- TECO
One's position has always been and it was at the last one, annex all property that is
affiliated with MDC, including Jaykers Tree Farm, which was the research that we have
been doing since the last Commission meeting. I was to the understanding, due to
some of the questions from the Commissioners at the last meeting, that the access and
the road was a concern. If that's going to be taken care of at a later date --
Borup: Well, I don't know if -- let me understand. Is what you're asking for is them to
bring the road to the Phyllis Canal? Is that what you have been trying to say?
Ewing: I think it's their responsibility to bring it to the Phyllis Canal for their neighbors to
the north, which is not us.
Borup: Okay. Even though they don't own the property?
Ewing: I -- okay. Ultimately, TECO One doesn't really care where they bring the road to
the neighbors to the north. Ultimately if they can't come through the gulch because they
don't own it, they can move it somewhere else, as far as TECO One is concerned.
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: I think TECO One tried to work with the developers to make the most logical
location work, but if this council doesn't agree with that, then, TECO One really doesn't
care where that access to the neighbors to the north goes and I'm sure that the
neighbors to the north will have comment on that.
Borup: Okay. I think I understand what you're saying.
Ewing: Any other questions? Sorry I got -- drug that out a little bit.
Rohm: Thank you. Sherry.
S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing. I'm a little
shorter than Tuck. I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and I'm representing the
Aldapes and the Everetts, who live just north of this subdivision. And I am wanting to
make sure that we get two accesses and the reason is, of course, we can't get access
from the north because of the river. We can't get access from the east of our property,
because Duck Alley doesn't even come to our property. We are about a quarter to a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 64 of 136
half a mile away. And another parcel is owned by some other people. To the west
Highway 16 will be going through there, which will have no access down at the river
bottom, so that's going to limit the east -west access. Thank you. And so -- and we
have no -- Black Cat is not an option, because of the fact that it does not touch our
property either. On October 12th of last year I talked to a planning staff member and he
informed me that because Tree Farm, Jayker, MDC, all those people, which is one, has
over 2,000 linear feet bordering the Aldape property, that we would deserve to have two
accesses and he said because every 1,200 feet you should have another access. And
the fire department will only -- if we only have one access, the fire department will only
allow us 50 homes and those 50 homes on 261 acres is really low density. So, we are
thinking that we really need two accesses down there somehow. And if it doesn't go
through, quote, the gulch, it needs to come through another piece of property that MDC,
the Tree Farm, whatever, is developing. And I would be very anxious to see what
Roger Anderson and Matthew Thomas are doing towards our access. I'm really
concerned about that. At the Planning and Zoning meeting you indicated that you
would delay their annexation until our access was resolved and I do not believe that that
has been resolved. In fact, I think, you know, the little green strip, number four in there,
is a major thing and it could take years and years to develop -- or to clear up. And to
me that is major. And I just also want to say that also if you pass this annexation, you're
just passing this problem onto City Council. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. John Ewing.
J. Ewing: I'm John Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado. I'm representing TECO. Actually, I was
hoping I wouldn't have to testify, but I do have some concerns and I think they grew a
little bit. I guess that, Mr. Borup, to answer your question, you know, I think with TECO
One is who is the neighbor to the north and if the city is going to take the stand that one
owner can own something and sell off land -- and I'll give you an example, the next time
TECO One does a development and we don't want to put services to our neighbors to
the north, all we will do is is we will sell it to another one of our companies or another
group of people and leave a 50 foot buffer and say, hey, we don't own it, you know, and
that's what -- we think that the relationship is -- is -- well, it's very close. That's why staff
has asked them to annex all of the land that they are involved in. So, I think that if
you're going to allow people to leave spite strips that they are going to control not
having to give access, that's your choice, but it doesn't seem right to me. The other
issue I got is is when they do hit TECO One's property at the north they are saying they
are giving us access, but we can't get off that road. Parcel four -- and to start with,
parcels aren't really parcels. It's -- if you go back to the map, that one parcel -- yeah.
That one. Two and three is the same piece of ground. You know -- and I don't know
why one and five is changed. Again, maybe it's changed because if the road moves
over, five wants to be by another owner. I don't understand that. But the fact of it is
where four is pointing -- well, you can see it. That's where the collector is going to
come. Tell me where you're going to get access to anywhere with number four that
nobody owns and you can't -- you know, TECO One can't go in there and continue the
road over land they don't own and I don't -- and I don't think Tree Haven can right now,
so--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 65 of 136
Borup: But Tree Haven says they will relinquish any claim they have.
J. Ewing: They don't own -- they don't own four and I don't think a collector can go on
40 feet. And the fact of it is so what if they do say they are going to give it up, we are
saying we will give up land, too, you know. We are not the neighbors to the north.
Okay. And that's probably enough said about that. The other thing is -- bottom line is
Sherry testified and I'm going to reiterate that the fact of it is the reasons the access has
been brought up is is because I believe that at the very first it was a concern of ours, but
it was brought up from your side and there has been a lot of discussion about it. And
the comment was made that until that was solved you didn't feel like you should move it
forward and I feel like it isn't, so I think they have tried to work with us what they have
and we have met and we have talked, but it's still not worked out. One last thing is
when we met with staff -- I don't know what happened between the time we met with
them and now, but I thought that you kind of felt the same way, that it hadn't been
worked out. And I didn't really hear that, but -- but, anyway, that's all I have. I'll answer
any questions. Thank you. I made it to my red light.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Bill Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Gigray, III. I'm here appearing on behalf of
Sandra and Art Rabehl. They are the ones that own the property and if I could ask
permission of staff if they could have the aerial, that would be tremendous, which is the
parcel that's along Black Cat Road and is on the west of Black Cat Road in the kind of
squared off pie shape there in the middle. My address is 5700 East Franklin Road in
Nampa, Idaho. I'm an attorney practicing law. Our position is we do want to work with
the developer. They have made this application, but we believe it's premature to finalize
this at this point in time because of a number of unresolved issues. First of all, I want to
say on behalf of my clients, who have lived there for 38 years, are farming it with alfalfa,
have raised cattle, pigs and sheep. They had hoped to retire there. This situation has
arisen within a very short period of time. We believe there are issues associated which
we have raised in our position statement with regards to the time this application was
filed. This was not even in the Comprehensive Plan, so no finding can even be made
that it's in conformance with the Comp Plan, because it's not even on the map that has
included the boundaries of the planning jurisdiction. Secondly, there is still unresolved
issues with regards to the negotiations with Ada County, because when the impact area
was negotiated at whatever time in the past, the county passed an ordinance, as did the
city, that no annexations would occur outside the impact area and it's still -- the city
amended their ordinance in September of 2005, but the county still has not done so.
The idea of impact areas is so that the property owners, of which my clients are, who
are in the county, are on notice that there are areas which will now be the subject of
annexations in the future and the traditional way of dealing with that is to first include
them in the impact area and, then, of course, the development is in accordance with the
impact area. That step has been totally missed in this instance. That step should be
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 66 of 136
gone through and the agreement that was reached with the county, which is through 67-
6526 of the Idaho Code, should be followed in this instance as a condition precedent to
a final action on annexation. The next item is the legal description and this is an issue
where my clients absolutely have to give notice at this point of their position. I would tell
you that our legal position is that the Idaho Supreme Court recognizes boundary by
agreement, it's enforceable under law, and that we will be forced to bring a quiet title
action, which may include the city if you move forward to final action, because you
understand once you do an annexation and it goes to the State Tax Commission, it's
map is included within the taxing district and you don't undo an annexation very easily.
In this situation we also have to move forward with that, because of the fact that the
Eggers trust, who owns this property, is intending on selling it and my client has to put
them on notice of their claim and they have been in possession of this property and one
of the documents that we have submitted that Caleb mentioned, we would hope would
be included in the record, and that is the record of survey of the -- survey of this
description by Alpha Engineers and we have a copy here of the survey and the record
of survey is full size, we have a copy of the one that was recorded with the Ada County
recorder, as well as the legal descriptions of the four parcels that are sub parcels that
come into play with the boundary by agreement. I would also submit that Mr. Bill
Crookham, who is the predecessor in title of Eggers trust will support the fact that there
was a boundary by agreement and that he did agree to that and when you look at the
survey, which we are asking be included in the records of this, it will show that Alpha
Engineers prepared that at his direction. And so we submit that we are going to have a
plethora of evidence to support our position on this and my client's position at this point
is he is not consenting to annexation into the City of Meridian and even if you take the
position that you have the right to annexation under 50-222 under category A because
of the permission of the owner, those portions of the property which are -- we claim in
my client's property, there is no permission. What we are saying is -- and we have
notified Eggers trust -- I sent a letter to them February 28th notifying them of our
position. I have not received any response whatsoever from Eggers trust. If they don't
respond and they move forward, we will have to file an action in order to protect my
client's interest in this, which they will do. The last part of this -- and we also feel that
there is a serious issue with your ordinance on the city impact urban service area, which
this is not included, and the staff report shows that there are existing constraints and
opportunities with regards to sewer and water to this property at this point in time and
that there are reasons why this should be held for further clarification, so that these
issues can be resolved before it goes to final resolve. We are willing to work with them
on this. We would like to get the boundary resolved. We -- my clients have offered,
have sent the letter to Eggers trust saying we will transfer those parcels which belong to
you, if you will transfer the parcel that belongs to us and it's -- there is four parcels on
this survey and there is three that my client would transfer to them. There is one larger
one they would transfer to us. But I don't know what their position is. I haven't
communicated with this whatsoever. The last part is if, on annexation, as you well
know, you can impose development agreements and you can have conditional rezones.
We have heard this evening the Hightower proposal, the Knight Sky proposal, and each
one of those we have plats, we have proposals that are very specific about where roads
and streets are going, what the proposed use is going to be, and exactly what the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 67 of 136
imprint on the land will be, so that the neighboring property owners know what's going to
happen. That's not the case here. All we have is a vague concept plan and a proposed
zoning designation, of which my client's property lies in the middle of parcel three, which
is 167 acres of R-8 and to the south and we submit part of my client's property is
proposed to be in the C -C zone. What we have asked them to do is to say if you agree
that certain uses, which are allowed in R-8, wouldn't be used and that the rest of the
uses which you want to use that would be by Conditional Use Permit, we would agree
and withdraw the objection. But the boundary issue still needs to be resolved, because
that has to do with the annexation. And we listed those in our position statement and
there are a lot of uses here which my client is not -- would not be happy about, if they
are saying, no, we can't do that, we won't agree to this. It's not onerous. We will be
willing to work on some of the conditions. If there is some of these they say we
absolutely have to have, come and back tell us that we have to have them, but they
haven't said anything, other than, well, we just can't agree to that. And so we are just
looking at a concept plan here. No specifics. We are also asking in a development
agreement that those uses that are allowed be by Conditional Use Permit. If they do a
PUD they got to have the same basic standards that you have for a special use permit,
but not in the platting. And what we feel is that your ordinance provides extra protection
for Conditional Use Permit to assess the impact and the effect of the development and
the proposed use on the neighboring property and since my client has a small piece in a
large sea of annexed property, we feel it's only fair that we have another shot to have a
Public Hearing, if there is issues where higher development standards could be
imposed to lessen any adverse impact and they would have to have a Public Hearing
anyway for a plat or for a PUD. We don't feel any of those requests are onerous and
would be reasonable in this situation. My client has to assess what's in his best interest.
This has been foistered on him. We are wiling to work with them. But we feel like some
time is needed here to figure out what are all of these logistics and if those can all get
figured out, then, it gets pretty smooth later on. If it moves forward too quickly, we feel
that it's doing nothing but forcing people to positions and it's going to cause nothing but
a problem. So, we appreciate you listening to what we have to say and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Gigray. Any questions of this --
Borup: I have got one.
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: Mr. Gigray, I'm not quite sure if I understand your comments on the survey. Are
you saying that you have another survey that differs from the one that was turned in
with the application?
Gigray: Yes. And if I could show that exhibit. My staff made a mistake and they
delivered these here at City Hall, not to the Hightower office where the Planning and
Zoning office is or you probably would have had this in your packets.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 68 of 136
Borup: Oh, maybe it's under -- and that's different than -- and that is different also, than,
the deed that you -- that your clients have?
Gigray: This is a record of survey that was prepared by Alpha Engineers at the request
of Mr. Bill Crookham, who had this done in 1981 following the agreement that he orally
reached with my client Art Rabehl about the boundary of the subject property and where
we are having the problem here -- and if I may --
Borup: So, is this recorded?
Gigray: Yes.
Borup: And is this the --
Gigray: The big one doesn't show the recording. The smaller one does.
Borup: And does this differ or agree with the deed that they presently have?
Gigray: No. It's a boundary by agreement and a boundary by agreement alters the
boundaries.
Borup: But there is no agreement that -- there is no agreement signed accompanying
the survey?
Gigray: No. It's an agreement that was reached orally by prior property owners, which
was followed up by actual possession and construction and location of fences and
ditches and property.
Borup: But no written agreement?
Gigray: The only written -- the only written evidence of it is this survey that was
recorded, which follows their agreement.
Borup: Okay. And does this survey differ from what's been submitted?
Gigray: Well, I point to this -- and I don't know if I can -- oh, here we go. Do I just push
on that? Is that what -- I'm not good at these. This part here was to be transferred to
my client. That piece there -- there is a small piece here, and this piece here would be
transferred by my client to Eggers. And so the deeds show the almost Nevada -like --
well, I guess it's not Nevada. Kind of a squared off pie shape is what the -- is on the
legals that are recorded. And, then, by agreement, because of the issue with an old
ditch that was here and the need to straighten this ditch out and the impracticalities of
farming that existed between Mr. Rabehl and Bill Crookham, they agreed that they'd
straighten the ditch out there and that this would become part of the Rabehl property
and because of some farming conditions and ease of farming on this end, my client
agreed that, then, he would move the fence down here and the new boundary would be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 69 of 136
down here, so that this could be farmed more easily up here on behalf of Mr.
Crookham. Then, there is some small little tips down here that were on the south side
of where the new ditch went in, which would go from my client to -- well, up to now the
subsequent title holder, which is Eggers. And we are offering to do that. We are not
trying to hold this up. We have the legal descriptions, they are there in the Alpha
Engineer. I have written a letter to Eggers trust. I followed it up with this one, once my
client found the survey, offering to make those transfers. And if they are willing to do
that and this application can be amended, so the legal is described and that issue goes
away --
Borup: So, on the survey that you gave us, you're saying that parcel number four would
go to the Eggers' property, Eggers --
Gigray: Yes. If that's the one on the north, sir.
Borup: Yes.
Gigray: The one I'm looking at has a font that --
Borup: Parcel number two, which is on the south, which was part of Eggers, would go
to your client.
Gigray: Yes. And parcels one and three, which are the little tips on each side, would go
to Eggers.
Borup: Well, why is -- why does this survey show these nice straight lines if that's not
what it's intended to be? Because that's what it -- okay. I see. Because originally it
was on both properties.
Gigray: And, then, you will see, sir -- and I --
Borup: Well, I still don't understand which one was which, though.
Gigray: The larger map is easier to see.
Borup: Yeah. That's the one I'm looking at. Okay. That's all I have.
Moe: Along with that, it was recorded.
Borup: Yeah. I don't understand what was recorded, though.
Moe: Right.
Borup: There is four different parcels here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 70 of 136
Gigray: Yeah. And they are there in order to describe where the boundaries need to
change and so that's the way the survey was done. And, then, drew up a legal
description for each parcel, so that the transfers could be made and the legal
descriptions properly identified, because it isn't one contiguous piece that was part of
the boundary agreement.
Borup: So, how has the assessor's office been taxing these properties?
Gigray: I assume the assessor's office goes off of the recorded deeds.
Borup: So, the assessor's office should have four different parcels.
Gigray: No, I don't think -- no, the assessor's office is -- these are not deeds, these are
records of survey. What we are saying is that is evidence of the agreement that was
reached by the predecessor in title with my client as to where the boundary was.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Gigray: And, sir, there is a paper that's dropped before you here. Could I pick that up?
If I could have permission I'll --
Borup: Oh, yeah.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Gigray: Thank you.
Rohm: Art Rabehl.
Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, Art Rabehl is my name. I live at 6745
North Black Cat Road. I just wanted to comment on the survey papers that we did take
and come up with. We went through everything that we had last Sunday trying to find
these and it was the last item that we did take and come up with in the bottom of
everything and we did locate this. So, we got a hold of Mr. Gigray on Monday and told
him what we had and that we had found it and so that's how come it -- you just have
that information now. We did also go to the assessor's office, because if you remember
last time we were here a month ago we mentioned that they -- we didn't have as much
property as what we originally had and the fellow at the assessor's office stated to us
that it was a clerical error and he could correct it real quick like and he just wrote on this
sheet that he had there and he says that's taken care of, you now have the original
property back. So, as far as the present property and the survey, that was not
recorded, and so that's where we stand on that part. Mr. O'Neal mentioned that they
had tried to work with us. I did want to make a comment that they did take and make us
an offer, but that they didn't want any of the buildings. I haven't devised a suitcase to
pick up my house and buildings and stuff and take with me. So, until they want to take
and make an offer which includes what we have there, it makes it difficult for us to -- you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 71 of 136
know, to work with them, because to me if you want a piece of property, you know what
it is there and you need to buy what is there. I mean you can't just say, well, I want bare
ground and you can't buy it that way, it just doesn't work, I have always seen it happen.
So, that's where we stand on that at the present time, so -- if you have any questions I
would be happy to answer them.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just more of a curiosity. I assume -- at one time I thought you
were talking about annexing to the city, but apparently you feel that the value of your
property increases by not being annexed?
Rabehl: Well, the reason I wanted to do that is I wanted to make sure that I could
continue to do what I wanted to do as far as farming out there.
Borup: Okay.
Rabehl: And also if I annexed into the city my taxes are going to go up and I'm not
going to get any real benefit that I can take and see from that happening. So, at the
present time I would like to --
Borup: But you do have it on the market?
Rabehl: I have it on the market at the present time. Yes.
Borup: Well, I understand on being able to continue to use it and taxes. That makes
sense.
Rohm: Thank you.
Rabehl: Thank you.
Rohm: Deborah Nelson. Okay. Thank you.
P. O'Neal: Good evening. My name is Pete O'Neal, 100 North 9th Street in Boise,
Idaho. I did get out and get a snickers bar during the break, so I -- that will get us
through. Starting at the bottom -- or what you heard last -- going back up the list. We
did offer to buy the property from Art and Sandra Rabehl. As Commissioner Borup
noted initially, this was included in the original annexation request and I think they
subsequently decided they didn't want to be in and, that's fine. I think what we were
trying to point out, that if you're valuing four or five acres as part of a giant development
and want the highest price per acre, there is not a lot of value in that house and
improvements on it, even though they cost what they cost and they cost to replace,
because that's going to go away in the process. So, I don't think we suggested his
house isn't worth anything, it's just that there is a total dollar amount that is probably
reasonable and we still think that. The difference is we don't agree on what's
reasonable at this point in time and, hopefully, at some point in time we will get there.
As it relates to Mr. Gigray's comments as it relates to all of the legal issues and 23
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 72 of 136
pages, I believe that Nelson responded in detail and, Mr. Nary, you could answer that.
don't think there was anything new added tonight that hadn't been brought up before
and answered and if you have got any questions on that, I'd refer that to our attorney
Doug Nelson. As it relates to the property, the Rabehl's property issue with the record
of survey. I think we done all we can do saying that, okay, we have requested
annexation and the Eggers have requested annexation and rezone of the property is we
thought we are involved. So, if it turns out that there is an error of a quarter of an acre
or three-quarters of an acre or whatever it is, I think that can be legally and technically
adjusted in the process. We'd just as soon not buy the same acre twice, but, you know,
if that's what it turns out to be, sometimes that's probably what it's going to be. The
Eggers have proved to us that they are very very reasonable people and I suspect there
is a reasonable solution to this and it's no -- it doesn't appear to me to be a reason for
you folks to have to play Moses on who owns what and how all of that's done. I think
that's a legal -- a legal issue. Going to the Ewing issues and the Aldape issues, if you
could put up that one gulch picture, I think I'd like to make this pretty simple. Even if we
controlled parcel four and parcel three, you can't logically build a road on that property
without -- the other one was fine. Without using some TECO property. And,
realistically, TECO can't -- or Aldape can't build a road on all TECO property without
using some of parcel three or MDC property. You probably could do it by going around
four. The easiest way to answer four, by the way, on quiet title, which we are happy to
work with the neighbors on, is the highway district can condemn it and it probably would
be a pretty easy job to condemn if nobody claims ownership. Probably won't cost them
very much either. So, there is ample room to get a road down the gulch. TECO One
has said they will cooperate with right of way. We said we will cooperate -- or MDC
associates will cooperate with right of way, so there really isn't a question of is there is
route down to the Phyllis Canal. The question is we don't think we should pay for it,
having taken two and a half million dollars worth of investment and -- that accrues to
both the Ewings and the Aldapes up to our functional north boundary to have to build a
road on property we don't own to service property that we don't think we are adjacent to,
doesn't seem fair to us and, frankly, TECO doesn't think it's fair to them if they come in
with a plat and you say you got to extend a road through there. So, you may be in the
position of -- or I'm not sure you need it for annexation and zoning at this time, but at
some point in time that's got to be resolved. Understand the Aldapes want access.
They have access. We have assured them they will continue to have access through
the gulch. It's possible to have access through the gulch. They request that we provide
two accesses, so that they don't have to deal with their neighbors to the west or their
neighbors to the east, to have alternate secondary access we don't think is reasonable.
I mean if we had to provide two accesses to every piece of property that is on the north
side of the canal from us, we don't think that's terribly -- terrible equitable. We do agree
with the City of Meridian, we do agree with ACRD, that there should be two points of
access to our functional north boundary, one that's here at Basco and the other is at
Black Cat. And once we get down the hill, if the guys in the valley want to cooperate
and tie together so they have two ways in and out, so they can maximize their
development potential, rather than what they can do with one access, that's a real
possibility. So, the real issue is who builds the road. It's possible to get one -- to get
one built. I think that's all I have to say. Be happy to answer any questions. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 73 of 136
Doug could explain how some of these funny strips came to be. I think -- he's a big boy
and he can speak for himself. I don't think he appreciates being referred to as
somehow or other intentionally holding these out as spite strips, so that we don't touch
something. I mean that doesn't make any sense. I mean there is some historical ways
you have described property that they changed several iterations ago that created these
funny little out parcels. But, in any event, I'll answer any questions you might have.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Maybe just one. It sounds like you're willing to do a quitclaim or whatever for
parcel four, because you're not sure you have any ownership there anyway; is that
correct?
P. O'Neal: That's -- absolutely. I think what we wanted to add to the condition is we
don't want to quitclaim it to TECO or anybody and, then, just have them sit on it and
say, well, we can't --
Borup: What difference does it make?
P. O'Neal: Well, if that is, then, used as we can't logically build a road -- that they can't
logically build a road, because we haven't determined the ownership on this, we think
it's --
Borup: But you're not building a road, so why would it make any difference?
P. O'Neal: Don't care. But it's -- I think it's at least -- listening to some people, they
think we ought to build the road. Perhaps the biggest value --
Borup: That's why I was thinking maybe you ought to just quitclaim it right now, you
have got nothing to do with it, and what happens in the future it's up to whoever
continues development and there is no question whether you have a claim or not.
P. O'Neal: Well, we have offered to do that if --
Borup: Well -- but that's not what you said earlier. It was offered with conditions.
P. O'Neal: Well, I think we just got to make sure we don't get put into a corner and into
a trap legally that we shouldn't have done that, but there is reasonable solutions to route
down the gulch.
Borup: And do you have any idea why that -- those other two strips, owned by MDC --
or you say that was -- that was just part of the past history of --
P. O'Neal: They changed the way they were describing the property and that got lost in
the translation, I believe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 74 of 136
Borup: Thank you.
Carnahan: I'll just try to keep this brief. Doug Carnahan. My address is 4410 West
Chinden Boulevard. All my comments are going to be regarding the gulch and I'm going
to try to be brief and not cover what a lot of other people have covered. My family owns
MDC. It's a company that's been around for a long time. Own Jayker Tree Farm. It's
also a company that's been around for a long time. And we are a partner and investor
in Tree Haven with the O'Neals. These are different businesses. They are not related,
linked in any way, other than there is common shareholders in them. There has been
no devious business development plans to do anything, including spite strips. I will be
glad to answer questions about the history of when we acquired this property over 15 to
20 years, if you'd like that, but just accept the fact there is no spite strips, it was all done
for good business reasons at different times. We are selling the property, several
hundred acres, to Tree Haven. MDC is. We have tried to sell those parcels down in the
gulch to Tree Haven. We tried to sell the parcels in the gulch to the Aldapes and we
tried to sell the parcels in the gulch to TECO One. Tree Haven didn't need them. And
the Aldapes and TECO One didn't want to buy them. I can respect that. And, then,
said I'll make the right of way clear. I will dedicate across any piece that I own in there, I
will dedicate to Ada County Highway District -- I'll dedicate a right of way to build a
collector connection. I'm happy to do it for anything I own. As a stockholder in Tree
Haven, Tree Haven doesn't own any ground in there and they shouldn't be asked to
build a road or something down there. So, that's to be clear on that point. But I'd like to
address one other -- two other things. One, the Anderson -Thomas thing. I have verbal
agreement with them. Before the final plat is recorded that issue will be resolved. And
so it's done. I mean put a condition in that if it's not done, then, we can't go forward. It
will be done. In a verbal agreement. The last thing -- and if I can get the slide put up
that shows the entire development, I'd appreciate it. Wanted to -- can you put the one
up that has the kind of blue lines marking out where the different -- no. There. Right
there. Right below project location, that five square acres is my home. If you move
over to the right and, then, you get over to a line of the -- the TECO One property, if two
roads were to be put in there, the obvious one is to put it through the gulch and we
support that and we are behind it. If we were to put a second road -- and there is this
50 foot vertical height difference between ground at that level below the Phyllis Canal
and above the Phyllis Canal, think about where you're going to excavate and put all this
big road and big hole in the ground to build, basically, another gulch to get down there
to the Aldape property next to my home. That's absolutely unacceptable. It's the only
place it can happen. The other place is over -- it goes -- because the ground below
ours is Spur Wing Country Club. There is just no other place to do it. So, I've said
enough, I have made my points, and I'm open for questions.
Borup: I've got one. Could you go back to that topo? This is your property along here?
Carnahan: Yes.
Borup: What's the value of that property to you?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 75 of 136
Carnahan: You mean in dollars per acre?
Borup: Yeah.
Carnahan: The same price that MDC is paying me for the rest --
Borup: Is it really?
Carnahan: Or Tree Haven is paying me for the rest of the ground.
Borup: Well, the Tree Haven is paying the rest of that, because they can put buildings
on it. Do you anticipate that the same thing can happen here?
Carnahan: No. I don't anticipate buildings can be put on it.
Borup: So, what can it be used for?
Carnahan: I don't know. But I paid for it, so I'm going to sell it. But I'm happy to
dedicate -- was I clear? Any property I own down there I'm happy to dedicate to ACHD
the right of way for a collector road to go through there.
Borup: Well, I'm just trying to cut through everything. It seems kind of silly to me to
have property that's unusable and pay taxes on it. I mean why even have it, but --
Carnahan: I need to take the longer term view and see if it's usable to me or not. But I
have offered to sell it. I haven't even set a price on it. I mean I got --
Borup: Well, yeah, how do you set a price on something that can't be used for
anything?
Carnahan: It's ground. I mean hillside. And people sell hillsides.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Carnahan: Oh. Excuse me. Could I add one last comment?
Rohm: One last comment.
Carnahan: The ground on parcel four, that questionable ground, I'm happy to dedicate -
- to donate that ground free of charge to ACRD. Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. I think that tonight's discussion has been a complete rehash of the
last time we were all here. I don't have -- I don't think we have heard anything tonight
that we didn't hear the last time we were in here. And I don't think that this
Commission's responsibility is to resolve these kinds of issues as to whether each of
you dedicate a portion of ground or quitclaim a portion of ground to Ada County
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 76 of 136
Highway District or otherwise. But it does
directly relate to how access is going to be
am not comfortable until maybe you all end
something. I don't know what the answer is.
e
appear as if our actions on the annexation
taken to adjacent properties and I, for one,
up with a quitclaim deed to Ada County or
Mr. Nary, do you have thoughts on this?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have basically two primary
issues in front of you. One's been raised by the Rabehls in regards to their property.
Most of those -- I think, like you have stated, Mr. Gigray has put on the record what --
similar to what was already provides in the last hearing in writing. I think I answered
most of those and the last one you have a letter from counsel for -- for the applicant
here that I think is accurate as well. Most of the issues that are raised are issues that
are certainly before you for your consideration, but they are not impediments to being
to annexing this property. The area of impact issue, the boundary dispute, the --
whether or not the -- there is an accurate survey of the property; there is a comp plan
amendment that has already been approved by the City Council. That's not an issue.
Available services -- can be made available. The applicant knows that -- what's
available at this time. That's not an impediment to annexation. All of those issues that
were brought by that, I think, although you may all address them as you wish, they are
not impediments to annexing the property. The issue regarding the roadway access to
the northern boundary is not an impediment to annexing the property. It might be
helpful to the City Council if you have an opinion about it or you may have -- may want
to put on the record as to where you believe that what's being proposed, where -- how it
does relate to the northern property, because of those parcels that are being required to
be annexed as part of this application, that are one three, two and five, a portion of this
application now borders the Phyllis Canal. There is this one parcel that's an outparcel.
If you, as a Commission, have an opinion about how that connection to the north can be
made, you certainly might want the City Council to know what that is. But it's not a
reason you can't recommend annexing the property. Most of these issues can be
addressed by the City Council as well. They may feel that it is too great an impediment
to annex at this time and it's not in the city's best interest. You all certainly can make
the same conclusion as well if that's what you think, based on this one little piece of the
roadway issue for the access. Again, I don't know that you have to make that decision.
I think you certainly can. It's within your discretion. But none of the issues that are
raised in front of you, either by the Rabehl's parcel or the access parcel, are reasons
you can't annex or recommend annexing the property, they are simply reasons that if
those are significant concerns to you, and you don't feel it's in the city's best interest,
you can certainly make that recommendation to the City Council and move it forward.
Rohm: I guess in response to those comments, we hear project after project after
project that we make it part of the development agreement that requires cross -access
agreements to be signed and a part of that development agreement before we move a
project forward. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a cross -access agreement, but, in
essence, that's what you're ending up with. You're ending up with being able to get
from property A to property B via some prescribed method that doesn't appear to be
plain to -- we have been listening to this for a hour and a half and I -- I don't have a clue
what the long-term answer to that question is. And if, in fact, whenever we hear a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 77 of 136
proposal, we make it a requirement that they have a cross -access. It just seems to me
that it's in the best keeping of the applicant and the adjacent property owners that that
issue be resolved before we move it forward or it may not get resolved at the completion
of the annexation. That's just my position. Anybody else have some thoughts on this?
Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm about as confused now as I was the last time this
came before us. Tonight I have heard that everybody is willing to give up parcel four to
Ada County or whoever, but none of you want to say that you own it, because you don't,
evidently. So, I don't know what you give up when you don't own it to begin with. That
was one of the main things in our last discussions that we were hoping we'd get some
resolution on what the deal was with that property, so we could move some of this
forward. Now, here tonight we are now speaking of the Rabehls, but they have got
other issues. I understand what counsel is saying as well. My biggest concern, again,
is just like the last meeting, I don't like moving things forward to City Council just,
basically, putting the trash in for them to make the decisions, when we really cannot
make the decision yet. So, right now I'm not sure that I can -- I can move this forward.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Well, I can put it this way. I have been spoken for by both of you. We have
in the past decided that certain things were not in the best interest of the City of
Meridian to take on when they presented a number of problems that, as Commissioner
Moe said, we aren't able to resolve them, why should we push it onto the City Council.
There are issues here that could be resolved, as has been pointed out. Everybody has
offered to cooperate and I might offer as a suggestion that everybody go to ACHD and
dedicate to ACHD the parcels that would complete a road and, then, bring this
application back to us. I'm not sure that I would want to just continue it forever, because
I'm not sure that is a resolution. To me, the choice would be continue it until something
really different happens -- and I agree with you this is not different from the first part of
this hearing. Either continue it until something really happens, like the swap by
agreement or whatever it was called, is recorded and approved and everybody agrees
to it. That everybody who has suggested they would dedicate land to ACHD does that
and they come back with those things approved. And the other option would be to send
it forward with a recommendation of denial. I suspect even if we send it forward with a
recommendation of denial, this same Public Hearing would happen at the City Council
level.
Rohm: I agree with that, Commissioner Zaremba, and what my recommend would be is
to continue this for the sole purpose of -- at whatever date we continue it to, to take
receipt of documentation that the right of way has been dedicated to Ada County
Highway District to resolved the issues for the cross -access to the adjacent property
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 78 of 136
and if we don't get that, then, it's -- it's dead, because I don't want to move this forward
recommending annexation without that issue being resolved.
Moe: Not only that, though, you need to remember the Rabehl's property as far as the
boundaries, they are still disputing that as well.
Rohm: Well -- and that's, as far as I'm concerned, as far as the disputed boundary,
that's between two property owners to resolve themselves and -- I don't even want to
get in on that. Caleb.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I may save you a little bit of time. That's
pretty impossible to do. One, ACRD won't accept a right of way without it being
improved. Two, they won't accept a right of way that's landlocked and unless you're
going to build a street all the way from Chinden up to the Phyllis Canal, they won't
accept a road in the middle of nowhere that no one can get to that's public right of way.
So, that's basically an impossible thing to dedicate, again, unimproved road and, two, a
road that doesn't start and doesn't end anywhere.
Rohm: You got an alternate --
Nary: Mr. Chairman? I mean I think -- I would think your alternate solution is what you
all have talked about. You can either move it forward with a recommendation to annex
with all of those conditions to be resolved as part of a development agreement and
that's the recommendation to the City Council. The boundary by agreement is not an
issue for the city. That's -- you're exactly correct. That is an issue between the property
owners. If they think they have a boundary by agreement, they think that those should
be amended; they can deal with that, that's not the city's problem, that's their problem.
But if you want that issue of the access resolved, then, you can either recommend to
approve it with that to be resolved on you can recommend to deny it, because it is not
resolved, and the City Council can, then, either continue it until the matter is, deny it
because it's not in the best interest of the city, because the access is not resolved. The
problem that you have here is with that one strip -- I think as Commissioner Moe stated,
no one wants to own it, everyone wants to give it away, no one wants to build a road on
it, no one wants to pay for any of that, but that's something the City Council can direct
on making the ultimate decision of denying it because it isn't resolved. That is an
impetus to get resolution or for it to really be a different alternative route to be figured
out that would go around parcel four, whether it's through TECO's property, whether it's
around this parcel, whether it requires them to redraw this -- this proposal as part of the
annexation -- if the City Council wants to do that, they can do that. But those are
probably, really, your only two options. Continuing it is probably not going to get
anymore information in front of you. We continued it once, as you said, and you heard
the same stuff tonight, I don't know that you will hear anything different if you continue it
again.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 79 of 136
Rohm: With that being said, I think the right answer is recommend approval with
conditions to resolve. Now, I'm not going to make a motion myself, but I think that that's
the best way to move this forward, because, quite honestly, I don't want to see it again.
Borup: I think everybody had a comment but me.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup and, then, I have an additional --
Borup: Well, I started thinking what Commissioner Zaremba said about dedicating that
to ACHD, but I was thinking the same thing Mr. Hood said, it's not going to happen in
any time frame that we would give and it does appear to me there is some -- I mean the
Rabehl property and the survey, all that shows to me is there is five parcels that were
surveyed. It doesn't show who owns what. But if what was said was true, it does
appear that the new survey that was done did cut off a part of the property -- part of the
original property and there is probably an adjustment to be done there, whether it's on
the north or the south of that, because the survey -- it appears to me the survey now
took off both parcels and that's for someone else. But I'm concerned about forwarding it
on, too. I guess the one thing that if that was accomplished tonight, I would be willing to
recommend approval, and that's -- that's parcel one, two, three, and five, if it was
quitclaimed to TECO, I think that would solve everything.
Zaremba: Well -- and four could be quitclaimed that --
Borup: Well, they can all quitclaim four. No one --
Zaremba: I'm sure there is wording that says --
Borup: Yeah. That all five --
Zaremba: If it's discovered that I have ever had any interest in it, I hereby give it up.
Borup: Yes. No, that's -- I have seen documents to that -- basically that same thing. I
mean it's unusable land. It's -- I mean no matter what Mr. Carnahan says, he didn't buy
that to grow trees on. When he bought the property he knew -- he knew he may be
paying for that, but that was not what he was paying money for. That was just part of
the deal. And it's along the same line as -- Mr. O'Neal mentioned about Rabehl's
property. They are buying the land, not the house. The house is of no use to them.
The same thing here. The land is no use. It's just part of the deal and it's unusable. A
50 foot embankment, there is no way it can be developed for anything anyway. But I'm
just making that as a statement. If that was done, I would be ready to pass it on now.
Rohm: I think at this point, then, it's probably appropriate to close the Hearing Public
and I would entertain a motion to that effect.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 80 of 136
Nary: Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment before you do that?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess the only caution I'd have from
Commissioner Borup's statement is in requiring the applicant to dedicate their property
to another property owner as a condition for annexation is unusual.
Borup: And I'm saying I'm not comfortable with making that a requirement.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: And I'm not saying it should be, I'm saying if that was --
Nary: You can require that cross -access be resolved and that there be access to the
north or there be a cross -access between the adjacent property owners or your
recommendation as to where the property boundaries are in your estimation as the
Commission, would probably be more commonplace as to a recommendation to the
Council.
Borup: I'm just saying cut through all the games and do what's practical and what's
reality and the thing could move on. But, no, I wouldn't make that a recommendation --
as a requirement.
Zaremba: My comment would be that -- I think the Rabehl's issue can easily be
resolved. To me it's an even swap one way or the other and whether it happens before
it's annexed or it happens after it's annexed, the property owners can agree on who
gets what property. And I would hope that doesn't end up being a court decision. I
think they can agree to that between them. My issue would be the access to the Aldape
property and my instinct would be to move it forward recommending denial, unless that
condition was met.
Rohm: Isn't that the same thing as saying recommending approval if it is met?
Zaremba: No, because the City Council has taken our recommendation of approval and
dropped conditions off of it before.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: It's a slightly different attitude.
Rohm: If we make the recommendation for denial unless they resolve and they do
come to resolve, do you anticipate the city being able to at that point in time approve --
is that what --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 61 of 136
Zaremba: That they would overrule us and approve? They have also done that in the
past when something was resolved.
Rohm: Then, let's get this closed and that's a great motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-004.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-004.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Borup: It still seems like a backwards motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to the City Council of file number AZ 06-004, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, for the following reasons: The issue
of access to the property to the north has not been resolved.
Rohm: Do you want to --
Moe: Second. There is no need for anymore than that.
Rohm: Other than it doesn't give the City Council the option of -- that's the motion.
Zaremba: If they present it at the Public Hearing that it's been resolved, then, the City
Council would not take our recommendation.
Rohm: Fair enough. That's --
Nary: It is merely a recommendation, Mr. Chairman, so --
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending denial of AZ 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Borup: Aye.
Rohm: There has been three in favor of the denial and one dissenting vote.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 82 of 136
Borup: We just needed some variety.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Thank you, everybody. And I apologize for the length of that hearing, but it --
there is just a lot at stake here and we don't want to miss anything. Thank you. Before
we open any other hearings, I need to poll the balance of the Commission and see if
they are willing to stick it out awhile longer. Are you willing to take one more? Okay.
Moe: We are here.
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-011 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development — 5603
North Locust Grove Road:
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-009 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on
29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by
Pacific Landmark Development — 5603 North Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: We are here. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the
continued Public Hearing from March 16th, 2006, for Items No. AZ 06-001 and PP 06-
009, both related to Basin Creek Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This should be pretty
brief. We did have a full hearing on this item last time. Just a refresher real quick, this
is an annexation and zoning of 29 acres from RUT to R-4 and a pre -plat of 88 single
family homes and ten common lots for Basin Creek Subdivision. We did have a
discussion about it, but it was similar to Knighthill where ACHD had not approved it yet.
ACHD did approve the application with no changes and staff would not have any further
comments.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
Ashley Ford, WRG Design, 453 South Fitness Place in Eagle. Thank you so much for
hearing me this evening.
Rohm: You're welcome.
Ford: Thank you. We are in complete agreement with the ACHD staff report. We are
in agreement with your staffs report. And we just respectfully request your
recommendation of approval to City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 83 of 136
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant?
Borup: No.
Ford: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Is there any other testimony or are we ready for a motion?
Rohm: Let's see if there is any -- is there any --
Borup: Why don't you just ask them. Is there anybody here --
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? None.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 06-011 and PP 06-
009.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-011
and PP 06-009, both related to Basin Creek Subdivision. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March -- originally March 16th,
continued to April 6th, with the -- end of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we
recommending approval of AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: How come they are not all like that.
forward on to City Council
All those in favor say aye.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I know we said we would do one more, but I think most of the
people here are for this next hearing; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 84 of 136
Zaremba: Some yes, some no.
Borup: And maybe out of deference to them for sticking it out, could we do one more?
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-012 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for
Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East
Bott Lane:
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-010 Request
for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common
lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240
East Bott Lane:
Rohm: Absolutely. I'll stay until -- I don't have -- I have got a tee time at 9:30 in the
morning. Okay. With that being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from
March 16th, 2006, of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both related to Hendrickson
Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am pinch hitting for Joe.
He is on vacation this week. Real quick, this project is on the east side of the recently
approved Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is the R-2 piece there, about 1,500 feet east
of Eagle Road. The application includes 9.43 acres. They are proposing an R-2 zone.
There are 18 single family residential buildings lots and 11 common lots. I see here it
says 18.84 acres. I'm not quite sure which one's correct. This is the plat. A couple of
things to point out on the submitted subdivision plat. There are a couple of changes.
The one being a common lot is proposed here. There is an existing home on this larger
lot. I can't read the lot number from here. Staff is recommending that this common lot
be moved to where I think it's Lot 3 is, whatever this lot is. Basically centralized. And
these two share a flag lot that has a flag lot down to this one, share a driveway. The
flag lot made this a buildable lot. So, essentially, you flip these two buildable common
lots, have flag lots, and the buildable lots on the other side. That makes the common
area accessible to more of the homes in the subdivision, get it more centralized to
everyone and puts it out on the street and not secluded back here, essentially, the back
yard, a front yard for the existing home. Speaking of the existing home, it does take
access currently to Bott Lane, a private lane, and, then, that goes out to Cloverdale
Road. A condition of the preliminary plat is that access be taken from this newly
proposed road and not Bott Lane. I think that the applicant had a problem with that, but
we do not allow single family homes to take access from private streets. So, like all
their lots in the subdivision should be required to take access from a public street and I
think those are the main things that Joe asked me to point out. With that I will stand for
any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come
forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 85 of 136
Elliott: I was going to say good evening, but I think it might be good morning by now.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Elliott. I'm resident legal
counsel for Vision First, LLC, which is the managing member of Kingsbridge Properties,
the applicant. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, in Eagle. 83616.
As the staff mentioned, we are the developer also of Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is
just to the west and adjoining this property. The Commissioners may recall in the
course of proceedings on Kingsbridge that there was extensive discussion about the
issue of secondary access through county roads, either to the north of Kingsbridge over
Terry Lane or to the north and east over Selatir Place. I stated then that our intent was
to acquire the Hendrickson parcel and explore ways of getting secondary access either
to the south and east to Cloverdale Road, rather than trying to get through Selatir Place.
Our original site plan that was submitted to this city at pre -app just had one stub street
out to the south. The staff recommended and ACHD has since ruled that we need to
have a second stub street to the north. We think that we have come up with a decision
or a recommendation, an agreement with the neighbors on Selatir Place that we would
hope to have this Commission's permission to take back to ACHD and, then, go to City
Council. We are back this evening with a nine acre R-2 subdivision, with 18 residential
units, including the house and lot at the southwest corner, which is being retained by
our sellers, the Hendricksons. And the two options for secondary access that we intend
to explore in the months ahead, first, our preference -- our very strong preference and
we think probably the most likely outcome is that there is a large tract just east of Selatir
Place that extends all the way to Cloverdale Road. It's split down the middle between
the Boise and Meridian areas of impact. We think that within the next year or so that
will be in for development approval and we would like to discuss with them the
possibility of having an access through that property out to Cloverdale Road,
essentially, just looping around the south end of Selatir Place. At the same time we
benefit that project, because we, then, afford it secondary access to the west through
the Hendrickson and Kingsbridge Subdivision out to Eagle Road. Another probable
scenario is that there are large tracts of land south of Bott Lane that may be developed
in the future, which could require the full improvement of Bott Lane from Cloverdale
Road as a public street and, then, a possible connection through the Hendrickson
Subdivision out to Eagle Road for their secondary access. We think that both of those
potential access solutions are superior to having a road punched through over a county
road, Selatir Place, and that's why we would like to go back with the neighbors'
agreement and talk to ACHD again. Vision First's project manager Gordon Bates has
taken the lead on this approval and in the negotiations with the city and ACHD and the
neighbors and I'd like to introduce him at this time to give the rests of our presentation.
Thank you.
Bates: Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. Address is 661 South Rivershore Lane,
Eagle, Idaho, Suite 160. Excuse me. 120. Very tired and I'll try to be as quickly to the
point as I possibly can as this comes through. I would first say that we are in agreement
with quite a bit of the staff report. We don't agree with the park. We think we have a
solution tonight that would address the staff concerns and the very realistic concerns
voiced from the police department. We'd also like to discuss with you about stub
streets. I think in your packet there should be a clarification letter from me already of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 86 of 136
record. I'd like to summarize that the applicant is not proposing to remove the south
connection to the existing lot right here. We are not proposing to provide access to
Victory Road via Selatir Lane over here. We are proposing -- we would like to propose
a stub street to the south down here. We would like to have the option to go back to
ACHD, similar to Knight Sky development and remove ACHD's requirement for a stub
street north. We do comply with the -- this is our initial layout that we took to the
planning department last fall, November, October, I can't remember the exact month,
and Anna Canning, the director planning of the City of Meridian, requested a stub street
north to a large five acre, six acre parcel there. Go to the second slide, please.
Therefore, we went in with a layout similar to this, showing that stub street and move
forward from there with public meetings with the neighbors. The development that you
have before us -- before you tonight does meet the five percent open space. It does
have the R-2 required 12,000 square foot minimum lots, 80 foot frontage. We do have
a couple flag lots that we are revising to staff comments to have shared driveways. We
have a few other concerns that we will discuss in hopefully just a couple minutes. Our
amenities on top of the five percent open space is a micropath through the park. We
are also proposing to have picnic tables and barbecue grills back there. We are also
proposing to have parkway streets with detached sidewalks and street trees. Excuse
me. We have had three meetings with neighbors. We have had lots of correspondence
with the neighbors on top of that and I'm happy to say and unhappy to say we are one
item short of agreement with our neighbors. If you could go to the next slide, please.
The concerns of the neighbors to the north here, Mr. Dan Johnson, who decided he was
going to go home tonight, he is openly admitting that he is thinking about doing some
type of redevelopment there. He doesn't have exact plans, he does not have an
application before the city. He is and has in his last e-mail to me, agreed with our layout
with the number of lots adjacent to his parcel, with exception that he does not support a
stub street to his parcel. The six acres north of us has direct access to Selatir Lane and
it does not need right of way access for a development from Hendrickson Subdivision.
We would, however, still stub utilities to his parcel, so he could enjoy city utilities. The
neighbors directly east of the project and further up Selatir Lane, their biggest concern
is traffic from Kingsbridge and from Hendrickson connecting through some day if this
redevelops onto Selatir and going on up to Victory. They are very opposed to that and
as Vision First is the developer, a stub street isn't warranted. We don't want to pay to
put it in, to be blunt. So, we are in agreement with the neighbors to discuss with Ada
County commission -- Ada County Highway District commissioners removal of that stub
street of the commission -- if the highway district would approve that. As concessions to
the neighbors' concerns regarding density and perimeter lots, transitions, et cetera, we
have a one-to-one ratio of one, two, three, four, five lots next to one, two, three, four lots
that already have homes on them and a deed restricted open lot to the very south. That
is a little bit nicer than what occurred with Knight Sky and their eastern boundary. We
also have larger 12 foot -- or 15,500 plus lots adjacent to there for the transition lots.
We have voluntarily offered and will provide a 25 foot rear setback against those
adjacent properties, above and beyond city requirements. We voluntarily have agreed
to provide a 16 foot wide landscape buffer at our developer's expense and maintenance
on the adjacent property that we do not own off site, owned by the neighbors with their
agreement to do so. The last request that the neighbors had before they said we would
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 87 of 136
come into the Public Hearing and support or at least neutral to your development, is
they asked for height restrictions on the five lots common with our easterly boundary.
As the developers, we feel we should enjoy the full benefits of the proposed R-2 zoning,
which allows for two story homes and that's one item that we are not in agreement with
the neighbors on. The staffs report, it was briefly ran through due to the time
constraints, notes that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan low residential future
use, provide reasonable transition lots and the voluntary concessions I just summarized
offer enhancements beyond the city requirements there. Regarding the park. If you
could go to the next slide, please. I did meet with Lieutenant Bob Stowe with the
Meridian Police Department to gather some first-hand information regarding the
concerns from the city on the park. I was not able to meet with the planning
department. We have revised our park. We have access to Kingsbridge Drive here.
We have access to Hendrickson Avenue here. We have a looped micropath through
the entire park that provides access from all of the lots to a dead centered right in the
middle of this development park. We also have flared this boundary to provide visibility
from the street directly into the deep park and that was a concern from the police
department that either a police cruiser and/or anybody walking along or driving along
the public street didn't have very good access in our previous layout and we agreed with
that concern for public safety and we are willing to revise the park to do so to provide
that visibility. An added benefit -- it's hard to see with this green lit up -- a micropath
loop back here with the picnic tables and barbecue grills, provides an area for toddlers
and et cetera to play where the moms don't have to worry about them running straight
out into the street after their ball. I mean we have a hundred feet or for them to get to
the street for mom to be able to catch them. We actually feel like with the enhanced
visibility, with the agreement to add in non -trespass lights -- in other words, lights that
are going to provide reasonable lighting in this park that do not trespass into these
backyards, an emergency vehicle access, either -- in all likelihood here, provide an
opportunity for emergency vehicles to get down into and access the park. I have met all
the conditions and all the comments that the police department provided and I think this
park -- it's deeper than if it was just right up along the right of way, but is does take
advantage of some dead property back in here that the -- Mr. Hendrickson did not wish
to retain around his existing home. As to the intent of our park, we would ask for a
condition of approval of this development that would say that we would -- we would get
resolution with staff ten days prior to City Council hearing on this subject. That brings
us to the summary, quickly, of the biggest issue on this development, which is this stub
street right here and potentially a connection to Selatir Drive. This spite strip right here -
- I use spite strip correctly in this case -- is privately owned. Hendrickson Subdivision
does not abut Selatir public right of way. We do not have any direct access to Selatir
Drive right of way to -- to make a connection at this point in time. The -- all the
neighbors have said we would rather have Mr. Johnson, if he ever develops, bring his
traffic on his six acres to his public access point to Selatir Drive and isolate any traffic
from Kingsbridge or from Hendrickson from ever accessing a rural, no sidewalk, narrow,
24 foot wide asphalt Selatir Drive and on out to Victory. As Mr. Elliott summarized, a
connection via a fully urbanized road with detached sidewalks, etcetera, to-- eventually
to Cloverdale is a much safer route for urban style traffic than down a rural road and we
would ask the opportunity as a condition of approval that we would -- before we go to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 88 of 136
City Council ten days prior we would have resolution from ACHD regarding that staff
that stub street. The added benefit, if you take the stub street out and you relieve any
utility easement, these lots in here can get a little bit bigger and we give a little bit better
transition to our neighbors than what we currently have. I'm going to go really quickly
and I will wrap up. The staff in their summary of the Comprehensive Plan said that the
access to the existing lot -- existing access should be closed. They did, in our opinion,
correctly exclude this from their site specific requirements. We will comply with ACHD's
request to provide access to the new public street via shared access drive, a flag lot, to
this property. We feel that their existing legal access that's been there for I don't know
how many decades should not be removed without just compensation from the party
removing the access. In other words, they should be able to enjoy their historic access
and the additional access here. Also -- if we could have the next slide, please. I think
this is my last one. Regarding fencing, Ten Mile feeder canal is here. This is owned in
fee by the irrigation district and Bureau of Reclamation is not part of this subdivision, is
off site. Therefore -- and also when Kingsbridge was going through approvals, the
Boise project border control provided a letter saying we don't want this thing piped, it's a
great big huge wide ten foot ditch. It was excluded from being piped. We feel like it
should continue to be excluded from being piped. Hendricksons have requested that
their existing improvements along this boundary remain as is and that fencing to keep
neighborhood and subdivision toddlers, et cetera, out of this canal be provided from our
south boundary line here along the south boundary to a gate that would block access
from the shared drive into the private lot and, then, around to the canal ditch bank road,
along the back of all these lots and tie into the Kingsbridge Subdivision fencing on this
side. This fencing boundary effectively fences off the Ten Mile feeder canal. Rather
than being located right at its bank, it's located further away. That would prevent
trespass onto the canal ditch bank from the neighbors. The staff report asked that this
small Lot 11 be removed. It's, actually, an open space. It's 300 and some feet --
square feet between the proposed right of way and the existing canal bank right of way
property that we would put landscaping in to prevent cars from going through and
getting onto the ditch bank. So, we feel like that lot actually ought to stay as open
space. The staff report -- and I think it's just a standard condition where they talk about
perimeter sidewalks. We don't abut this drive, this right of way, and I just want to make
it clear that there is no side -- we are not proposing to put any sidewalks against a right
of way that we don't abut. That's more of a clarification I think. There is a provision
regarding any structures on this existing lot, that they don't encroach -- this is from
public works -- encroach setbacks or straddle lot lines. We agree with the straddling lot
lines, you don't put a lot through a building, and we won't do that. We do feel if there is
any existing structures in here that encroach into a setback in this boundary area, be
grandfathered in. To be honest with you, I haven't been able to look at the details of the
staff report and go out to the site, due to all the mud we have had, with construction
down on Kingsbridge, et cetera, to try to figure out if there is really an issue there, but
we think that if there is an existing structure out here that might be in this setback, that it
ought to be grandfathered. And on the last subject, on this existing lot, there is an
existing gravel, all-weather surface here that provides emergency access. We would
like to propose to have this section also be graveled and it would be paved to their gate
through this shared -- shared driveway on the flag lot and graveled on through. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 89 of 136
that would be ultimately something the fire department would say they agree with or not.
And with that I will tell you that the neighbor's going to come up and give you some
more feedback on this stub street as a concession to enhanced secondary access for
emergency vehicles, not required by the fire department in their comments, both Vision
First, who is the developer of this property, and the neighbor who is the owner of that
itty bitty piece right there, in agreement to provide an emergency vehicle access with a
gate to prevent trespass by -- and through traffic, but that would provide emergency
vehicle secondary access into all this development. We would like to be able to put a
knuckle cul-de-sac here if ACHD approves that. This is more for your information of
something that we will present to ACHD. With that, this small nine acre subdivision, 9.4
some acres, meets the R-2 zoning requirements and meets the Comprehensive Plan
future land use designation and requirements. It will provide the City of Meridian with
larger lots, being 12,000 square foot minimums and up to 16,000 something right here.
Any comparison with Tuscany across Eagle Road, with Sutherland Farms north of
Victory, et cetera, I believe, with the exception of maybe a few transition lots, all other
lots are much smaller than this. They are actually free from the diversification of the lot
sizes south of the freeway and giving the City of Meridian some options there. We will
extend the utilities north, as I just -- as I previously said and we feel it is in the best -- the
city's best interest to annex this parcel. We'd ask that you grant your conditional
approval tonight of our application for annexation, R-2 zoning, and preliminary plat.
With that I would stand for any questions from the Commissioners.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a very thorough presentation.
Bates: Sorry it took five minutes longer than I was hoping it would.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just a couple I have. Where is their existing access to this property?
Bates: If we could go back to the aerial, I believe, the first slide.
Borup: I have got an aerial here. Is it -- Bott Lane was mentioned.
Bates: Their current access to their house -- this property -- the original tract of land
included this ditch. I didn't bring the title report, so I can't tell you --
Borup: Well, that's fine, I just wanted to know how their access --
Bates: They dedicated this access to the -- or this property to the ditch company and
they have enjoyed their access down the gravel lane and on down to Bott Lane ever
since.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 90 of 136
Borup: Alongside the ditch?
Bates: Alongside the ditch on a gravel lane.
Borup: Okay.
Bates: We are proposing to provide not only for them to seek to keep their existing
access that they already legally have right to, but they have another access to the
proposed street, so that we meet the city requirements that they have access to streets.
Borup: Well, they legally have access -- they legally have right to that as long as they
are not annexed into the city, but that's not what you're asking for. The other question
had was on --
Bates: This lot needs to be annexed into the city, because it will be smaller than five
acres.
Borup: Right. I mean that doesn't guarantee them the access if you're asking to be part
of the city. The other question I had -- you kept referring to that drive as a shared drive.
Who is sharing it?
Bates: If we could go to I think maybe the third slide, where it shows those shared
drives real quick, please. Perhaps the last slide.
Borup: Is it the lot to the north is also going to have access off of that?
Bates: Yes. The lot to the north would also have access. And that's in response to
staff comments where if you have a flag lot where this lot has 15 foot wide property that
abuts the public right of way here and this lot abuts the public right of way, a 20 -foot
wide asphalted improved driveway would go through this hatched area serving this lot
for their access and this lot for their access.
Borup: Does that require this lot to access there or have they got their option?
Bates: I believe the UDC says that this lot would access via the shared drive, but I think
staff could maybe provide a quick clarification there.
Hood: It depends on how much frontage the flag has. If they have 30 feet of their own,
they can have their own driveway. If it's less, then, they need to share with the lot to the
north.
Bates: We could make that work out. However, I think this layout is something that
would work out with all parties interested on this, both the Hendricksons retain their
existing house and land around it and the future development both.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 91 of 136
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Bates: Thank you. I'll leave the pointer up here.
Rohm: Quite a long list. Before I call anybody forward, is there a spokesperson for the
group of people that have signed up here? Any one single spokesperson?
Borup: Doesn't look like it.
Rohm: Doesn't look like it. Tim Petchy.
Petchy: I'm here. I can get up and talk. Commissioners, my name is Tim Petchy, I live
at 3726 South Selatir and that is actually -- can we keep that slide up there. That
doesn't look familiar. Actually, I have the end of the cul-de-sac here and I have these
two parcels here. I appreciate all the work that Vision First has done with the neighbors
on meeting some of our requests on this project. I guess my biggest concern that I
have left remaining is the fact that this is, basically, an extension of Kingsbridge and on
the original plat of Kingsbridge you guys had half acre lots on all the perimeter of these
larger lots and we are one acre to five acre lots in there. So, I would hope that that
same scenario would carry through on this extension. And we were willing to forego
that if we could deed restrict these lots along here to single level homes, because, in
fact, they did restrict all of these for Hendrickson and our biggest problem is a two story
house 25 foot off of this back line -- I mean we are looking right into the backyard of a
two store house sitting there, because that's -- our houses are facing that direction and
it's just -- we have enjoyed these sunsets all these years and we really don't feel like we
need to be looking at the back of a two story house. So, we are willing to forego any
problems with their size of their lots there, if we -- we could get those houses deed
restricted. And I think as far as all the other issues we have, they have addressed
those. So, that's all I have to say. Thanks.
Rohm: Are all of your homes single story?
Petchy: I think, what, is there just one? All but one. Yeah.
Rohm: Thank you. Lisa Petchy. She -- from the audience she said she's been spoken
for. Bill Fifcot. He's in bed? Great idea. And Mary Ann Fifcot. She's gone, too. With
any luck. Yeah. That's enough. Shelly Robertson.
Robertson: Hi, my name is Shelly Robertson and I live at 3350 South Selatir, which is
just to the north of the proposed project. As stated earlier, I think that the developer has
been somewhat agreeable. My main concern, because I am to the north of the project,
is the stub street and any traffic from the project getting onto Selatir Place. As they
stated, it's a rural street, no sidewalk or anything, and any additi o
nal traffic coming
Meridian Planning $ Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 92 of 136
through there is not advantageous to those of us who live down there. That's my main
concern and why I stayed until this time at night. That's all I have.
Borup: Quick question. I assume you and the neighbors would feel the same way or --
notifying ACHD in how you feel?
Robertson: I have not. But we just had a meeting last night with the developer with the
Borup: They could help you with that, I would think, if you wanted to know who to
contact and that's how you felt and you want ACHD to know about how you felt about
the stub street.
Robertson: Okay. I will be sure and do that.
Borup: Thank you.
Robertson: Thanks.
Rohm: Before I ask the next person to come forward, I just have a question of staff.
Does that seem reasonable, because the adjacent property already has access to the
east, to eliminate a stub street to the north?
Hood: It sounds somewhat reasonable, but I don't think it is. The real issue, if this road
-- or when the project to the north develops, should it tie back into Selatir, can be
answered at that time. The real question is interconnectivity with that six acre parcel --
five or six acre parcel to the north, with and to Kingsbridge, and I think that is important
that there be the interconnectivity, at least with these two parcels. Now, whether, again,
they take a street and tie it back into the existing rural 24 foot street is to be talked about
at a future date and that battle is, really, for another day. The stub street to the north is
going to an be unimproved five or six acre parcel. Now, I did talk with a representative
from Pinnacle Engineers today who told me he was representing that property owner
and they were -- were wanting that stub street and wanted to make sure that that stayed
in. That's the conversation I had this afternoon with someone at Pinnacle representing
the applicant. The other thing is I looked at ACHD's requirements and they acted on
this on March 21st. They have a 15 day appeal period. Their appeal has passed.
There is no way to appeal a decision from ACHD after 15 days. So, it's going to be an
uphill battle. And I don't think it should go away in the first place. I really do think it
makes sense. I don't think it's in the best interest, then, of the city to approve this
development if you don't have the future interconnectivity with the parcel to the north.
Rohm: Thank you for your input. I think. Having asked that and received a response,
we will move onto Rick Anderson. He's gone home. She's in support of the
neighborhood and doesn't wish to add anything.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 93 of 136
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe in the interest of time you might just ask those that want
to speak come on up.
Rohm: Come on up.
Becker: My name is Lisa Becker. I live on 342 South Selatir and I do want to address
the ACHD issue on the stub street. I have references to some of their letters that I
would like to point out to you. You talked early about the street that goes nowhere.
This stub street would be the street that goes nowhere. Dan Johnson, our neighbor,
told the developer today that he was not interested in having the stub street. Dan
Johnson lives here. Other way? Okay. This is Dan Johnson and we are right next to
him here at Selatir -- five acre estate lots. So, on my slide I just wanted to pointed out
on slide number two, the ACHD report, dated 3/21, says that the applicant proposed the
stub street to the north of the property and they said with possible future connection to
Selatir Street, but they said -- ACHD said the applicant asked for it, ACHD didn't ask for
it. That's what they say in their report. And if you need the document, I have one for
you. Also, I think it's important to note that ACHD says connection could be made to
Selatir. They aren't saying it should or it must, it could. A possibility. It do want to point
out that we have protective covenants in this neighborhood that only allow one acre
development, so, basically, Dan, our neighbor, would only be able to put four additional
one acre lots, which have a direct access to Selatir. As far as connectivity, I wanted to
talk to you about slide number three. ACHD stub street policy says that it should not
cause undue hardship to the adjoining property and that's -- I have the policy number
there listed for you. One hundred seventy vehicles trips from the Hendrickson property
and potentially 500 vehicle trips from Kingsbridge will cause an undue hardship for
Selatir Street and I have gone and measured it. It's not even 24 feet wide. It's 23.5 feet
wide. ACHD also has a policy requiring 36 foot streets for densities less than one acre.
So, I just wanted to point out to you that Selatir Place here was originally designed to
just access six estate lots of five acres each. The homes are between a half and one
million dollar homes. So, it's not that we need to connect in with this neighborhood, it's
kind of a unique place in and of itself. I don't know why there would need to be
connectivity into an urban density subdivision in this parcel. We do have restrictive
covenants here, so the future development will be one acre or less. I mean no less than
one acre. And, finally, just on the second page I have some pictures of our
neighborhood, so that you can see. We have been here before, you might remember it,
when we were here for Kingsbridge, but that's what the neighborhood looks like. It's
kind of the Eagle look that you were talking about earlier, nice large estate lots. So, we
just ask that you take the stub street out. It doesn't appear by the ACHD document that
they asked for it to be put in. They referenced that the applicant asked for it. So, if you
need to refer to that -- we didn't know anything about an --
Rohm: Chances are the applicant asked for it, because the City of Meridian asked them
to ask for it. So, it's kind of --
Becker: And if we have missed the 15 day deadline for opposing this, we didn't know
about that, I suppose. We are real concerned about that stub street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning i
April 6, 2006
Page 94 of 136
Rohm: Well -- and I think that that's why I asked Caleb to speak to that before we took
the balance of the testimony, because the developer's kind of put in a spot that in order
to be in compliance with development standards within the City of Meridian, one of the
issues is -- is we always want developers to provide that connectivity between one
parcel to the next and if, in fact, they don't, then, what you end up with is landlocked
parcels that there is no way to get to them.
Becker: And in this case, this development has access to this Kingsbridge, access to
Bott Lane. Dan Johnson has indicated he will access his -- any future development
onto Selatir. So, everyone we have talked to opposes that stub. Dan, the neighbors, all
of the neighbors to the north.
Rohm: Understood.
Becker: And you also took that stub street out earlier today that went to a five acre
parcel to nowhere that the neighbors said they didn't want to have, so --
Rohm: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just a real quick point of clarification while the next person comes
forward. ACHD site specific condition of approval number two says construct the
following stub street and it goes on to require that stub street. So, it doesn't give the
applicant an option. What I may just offer up, since it is some new information, the letter
from Gordon just a couple days ago didn't mention anything about wanting to remove
this stub street. It's new information to me. Like I said, I had a conversation with
someone who told me he was representing Dan anyways and wanted to have a stub
street. I would say let's give the applicant two weeks to contact ACHD and if it's
something they can -- they can do. Their policy used to be that if it's been 15 days
since action, that that's their final action. Their appeal period is over. But this new
information that's being brought up at this hearing, I think -- and not being Joe, I think it
would be fair to get all of that information and see where ACHD stands. I still think it
makes sense and that ultimately comes back on the Commission to make that
determination, but I just wanted to point out that it is a site specific condition. It's not an
option at this point from ACHD.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Please come forward.
Larsen: Do we need a fingerprint, something that --
Rohm: Just name and address is fine.
Larsen: Name and address. Jerry Larsen, 3536 South Selatir. I wanted to address the
density, come at it from a little bit different angle. This is an R-2 -- called an R-2. But if
you take the large block of Hendricksons out of there, the effective density along Selatir
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 95 of 136
is greater than R-2 and, then, they line them up with us, which I can see why they did
that. And, then, to allow -- at a higher density and line them up with us and, then, allow
two story homes seems a little bit -- a dramatic change from what we currently have.
So, that's my comment on it. It seems too dense or too tall for this situation.
Rohm: Thank you. Anybody else?
Welkerstein: I thank you for hearing me tonight. My name is Virginia Welkerstein. I live
on Selatir Place, 3702 South Selatir Place. And I just wanted to comment on your
question that you had about the houses on Selatir Place and were any of those houses
two story. There is one that is two story and it's mine. I wanted to let you know that
even though it is two story, it sits on one acre, as opposed to .3 acres. And the house is
also set back about 200 feet from the road, Selatir Place, anyway. So, even though we
do have a two story house and have a different situation where the density is a lot less, I
guess, is the proper way to put it, we are also and our family concerned about the
density with the transitional acreage as well. It has been addressed. I agree with my
neighbors, what they had said so far. I also agree with the stub street as Lisa spoke to
it, very concerned about that. If you could come out and see our road, you would
understand why, I think. The traffic that might be allowed through there is just
something that would be unsafe for the people that live there now with the way the road
is. And that's all I had. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Sir?
LaVigne: How are you doing tonight -- or this morning. Excuse me. My name is David
Lavigne. I live on 3317 South Selatir Place. That's further north than what the image is
there. And I am opposing the development, primarily for a couple of reasons. Primarily
because of the stub street. And just a couple points -- and Lisa's made some really
good points, which I was going to make, and I don't want to take the extra time to do it.
Some of those reasons I agree with as well. There is also one other thing pointed out is
-- is this live? Okay. There is, actually, a stub street here, there is also a stub street
here, which is about 600 feet west of the one that's being proposed here, which is going
-- accessing out toward Victory Road. Do you need --
Rohm: There is another pointer -- there should be another pointer that -- there you go
LaVigne: So, there is an additional stub street right here that was already approved
with the Kingsbridge Subdivision. So, is this really that necessary to have when you're
only looking at going into potentially four more homes that are going to be -- that you
could subdivide into, where you can access -- this has already been approved, it's
already in the plat that's going to be there. So, that was one of my points. The other
point was that there is public safety in stub streets and they are going to be in public
safety, with a 24 foot wide road. If you really look at -- I have three year olds -- I have
got two three year old boys and a six year old boy and they come down this road, they
ride their bikes down this road, and they come and play with Jenny's -- Jenny's kids.
Now, if you open this up to a 170 -- 170 trips per day, which is what ACHD says this will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 96 of 136
be, and, then, this -- add in another 25 percent of the volume from Kingsbridge, you're
talking about a 466 percent increase in the amount of traffic that's going to go up and
down that street. So, how do my kids come down here to visit with their friends at the
end of the street? I mean there is no sidewalks. They got to ride through the borrow
ditch, borrow pits? I mean it just can't handle it. So, that's one of the other points.
Density as well. You know, we had talked about the density and this -- and I think with
the precedent that was set with Kingsbridge with the half acre parcels around the
perimeter abutting all the large acreages, you can count -- there is no difference in this
subdivision than there is in this. Why -- why is there -- why is there not any consistency
with what everybody agreed to with this and what Planning and Zoning and City Council
and everything approved with this, why are we not holding this subdivision to the same
standards is a question I have. Finally -- and just without reiterating some of the other
comments, in closing is I'm just asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to do what
Vision First is asking, as well as Mr. Johnson and the Selatir homeowners association is
asking for, eliminate the stub street north to Mr. Johnson's property to prevent any --
make it a safer street for everybody.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Brender: I'm Susan Brender and I live at 3568 South Selatir Place. Not quite across,
but almost right straight across from this proposed development. And I, too, appreciate
what Vision First has done in working with us and I'm concerned about that stub street,
because I see a real possibility that if that's there, eventually, it will allow all of
Kingsbridge traffic to go down Selatir Place. I'm concerned about the houses on the five
lots that are adjacent to Selatir and if at all possible if we could keep those to single
story houses, we would really have a pretty nice match on both sides of the street. So,
those are my concerns. Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify?
Vanskoy: My name is Leonard Vanskoy. I live at 3608 South Selatir. I am just to the
north of the bottom cul-de-sac, the second house next to Jenny. I am in agreement with
the Kingsbridge. We were here for nine months doing the same battle before. We do
feel that the density that's there now and the stub street, why would 17 houses warrant
another stub street, when the 125 to the south -- or the east of us -- or west of us were
fine to the north stub street going up? Why does that warrant another stub street. And
we would ask the same thing on the single level houses, because I'm directly across the
street from about the third house from the north and I -- when I had my conversations
with Gordon -- and they have been very, you know, willing to cooperate with us, so to
speak, my comment was if you're going to put a house on a third of an acre, why don't I
put a house in my backyard, and he said you wouldn't want one. Why would I want it in
my front yard? And I just -- you know, I don't believe in the density that's going on. I
think, you know, the precedent that was set in Kingsbridge should be happening for lots
around also. That's all I got.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 97 of 136
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? I think that the two main issues that most of you
have brought up is the stub street to the north and the single story dwellings along the
east line of this development and -- would the applicant like to come back up.
Bates: Thank you for the opportunity. I don't believe that we need to rehash the
concessions, et cetera, that were done on Kingsbridge. I believe Knight Sky that you
looked at tonight and approved is a much better example of how to transition from rural
one acre lots than Kingsbridge ever dreamed of being. I would just simply state that we
did a one to 1.1 ratio with Dartmoor that had one acre lots, where there was a 60 -foot
canal easement and a 20 -foot buffer between our lots and their lots we have 15, 16
thousand, 17,000 square foot lots in this subdivision. We removed the lots in this
layout. This is -- we removed one of these lots, went from six to five to match the one-
to-one ratio, which is better than what Knight Sky has done. We also provided a 25 -foot
setback, plus a 16 -foot buffer, plus the 50 -foot right of way, plus their front yards, which
as one lady had said, it's 200 feet. We feel like we have got a big separation from their
neighborhood to where these houses are going to go and a lot of that was above and
beyond what the Comprehensive Plan or the city code would have required a
development to do.
Moe: Are those going to be two story or single story?
Bates: Two story is what my -- the CEO of the company has said he's willing to bring to
this meeting tonight. He believes that's in compliance with the R-2 zoning and that's
where he stands tonight. The stub street, as they said, Mr. Johnson's parcel is not
Planning Commission give us a condition with an option to be able to
landlocked. I really feel like that's a discussion with ACHD and we just ask that the
remove that stub street if other agencies allow it. talk to ACHD and
Rohm: So, you're not opposed to the removal of the stub street?
Bates: We would, actually, be very much in favor of removing the north stub street and
providing only the south stub street. Mr. Johnson has gone back and forth and back
and forth with any layout plans. I think that's why his engineer is talking to Caleb saying
we want a connection to the south and Mr. Johnson was talking to me via the e-mail
today before lunch saying I'll take my access to the north. He just really doesn't know
for sure what he's going to be able to do out there and what he is going to do out there.
All he knows is his five acre lot some day something's going to happen to it and I think
that's all I can safely say tonight.
Moe: Well, as of tonight right now he's going to have a stub street to the north, because
ACHD's requiring it. So, that's one point you're going to have to get back to
get that rectified. ACHD to
Bates: Yes. We would have to go back to ACHD. We simply ask for the option if
ACHD approves the removal, that we could remove that. And, again, the density that
we are proposing for this development is within the R-2 zone requirement. It's 1.9 off
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 98 of 136
the top of my head. I believe the staff report says the exact calculations. It's smack
dead in the middle of the low -- comprehensive low residential future land use, which is
one to three dwellings per acre. I think, unlike Knight Sky where they were going
against big tracts and going for R-4, are going for much less dense zoning. I think that's
another favorable item in our favor on this. With that I have covered all my rebuttal
notes. Any further questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. -- Gordon, did you say you eliminated one lot here and
there is five now?
Bates: Yes. This development -- this slide right here shows the layout that we took to
the first City Council -- or, excuse me, the first --
Borup: Okay. I just didn't have a copy of the revised. I --
Bates: Actually, I don't know where that came from.
Borup: Mr. Hood, do you have a copy of the revised plat showing five?
Bates: The plat in the staff report I think is, actually, the correct plat. Preliminary plat.
This has a buffer here that Mr. Johnson says he doesn't want. He's got extra -- that's an
incorrect earlier -- I don't know where that came from.
Borup: Well, that's why I just wanted clarification. So, there is five lots along there, not
six?
Bates: Yes. There is five -- an earlier rendition when they were doing -- having
neighborhood discussions, we had six here. Based upon their feedback we removed
one of these 12,000 square foot lots and increase and created transition lots of over
15,000 square foot up to over 16,000 thousand square feet. I matched them at a one to
one.
Borup: Okay. There we go. I found another one.
Bates: Thank you for --
Borup: So, one out of three had it right.
Bates: Thank you for asking for clarification on the lot count there.
Borup: And, then, the other question I had -- and I have never been in favor of
restricting building heights, as long as they comply with the ordinance and you said your
desire is to have two story on every lot in the subdivision?
Bates: Two stories here, two stories here -- the Hendricksons, as a condition of
purchase and sale, requested that the lots directly adjacent to them would be one story
Meridian Planning & Zoning .
April 6, 2006
Page 99 of 136
and as a condition of purchase and sale we complied with that. As a condition of zoning
and city approval, we do not agree that these perimeter lots should be restricted to
single stories.
Borup: And that's the only thing I have a concern with. If Hendrickson -- and like I say, I
have never voted in favor of restricting heights, but in this case, you know, he wants ii
around his property, I don't know why these neighbors over here shouldn't deserve the
same thing. But that's my comment on that. If he was not restricting it, I would have a
different attitude.
Rohm: So, you support restricting the heights on all of them? Because --
Borup: In this case -- and I have never been in favor of it before.
Rohm: Understand.
Bates: I guess the only response I would have is for the city agencies to go against the
zoning ordinance request and restrict heights and impose that upon a development as
an -- as an agency, to me, is quite different than a developer, in order to purchase a
piece of land, making an agreement with the seller. I would just see that as two
different -- two different things. Restricting all these lots --
Borup: Well, not all of them.
much more difficult to market these lots and we feel like that is a hBates: Well, these lots -- restricting additional lots to single story, it just makes it that
development. ardship upon the
Borup: And I agree. That's why I said, I have never been in favor of it before, but you
have already made that -- you have imposed that on yourself already for half the
subdivision, so --
Bates: Any further questions of me, sir?
Rohm: No. Thank you.
Bates: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Moe, do you have any comments? Final comment?
Moe: Well, I guess the only comment there, looking to go back to ACHD in regards to
this stub and whatnot, if, in fact, that was to be given,
thenthe
going to somewhat change and we also in the past havenot,
liked ob oI a d anything
on until we have been able to see exactly what the final view is going to be of the
subdivision, so I guess I'm curious as to whether or not we are looking to continue this
until they can get decisions from ACHD.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 100 of 136
Borup: I feel it's a pretty minor change and I don't -- I mean we saw a hand sketch of
what it would do. I mean I don't -- it's not going to add additional lots, it's going to make
the lots bigger, so I personally don't have a concern with that. I don't know how we -- I
mean what's our options on -- whatever ACHD does is kind of out of our hands, other
than recommendations, I guess, the city could make to them.
Rohm: Well, I think that our recommendation to Ada County carries some weight and, if
in fact, we are in support of both the property owners and the developer to eliminate the
stub street, it may influence Ada County into removing that requirement.
Borup: But we may want to be in support of the staff, too.
Rohm: There you go.
Borup: I'm not sure if I would -- I mean I would just as soon not make a
recommendation either way, but if that was the choice, I -- could I -- I really like the idea
of interconnectivity, but, you know, if it's only going to be an additional four lots, then,
maybe it's not that important.
Rohm: Well, from my perspective, the interconnectivity already exists and to have this
additional stub just provides additional interconnectivity.
Borup: And there is going to be pedestrian connectivity if that emergency -- emergency
access is in there. That would be -- I'm assuming they would still allow for pedestrian
access.
Rohm: Yeah. I -- really, I'm pretty much in support of everybody that's testified out
here. The applicant doesn't have anything against removal of that street and nobody
else wants it and it appears to me that that adjacent property can take access to the
street to the east and still be able to develop at some future point in time. So, it doesn't
seem to me that we would be losing a lot.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- I was going to ask Caleb a question, actually. Do we have
an aerial or a site plan that includes the whole square mile that this is in the middle of?
Oh, the future land use map is what I'm thinking of. It doesn't show the roadway. 1
guess what I was considering is whether Selatir is so oriented that ACHD might some
day decide it should be a collector and improve it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I don't -- or Commissioner Zaremba, I don't see that happening. It
does cul-de-sac there. I don't see there is any way that it's going to get over 2,000
vehicle trips a day, just based on the density in this area. There is no way
did connect it in the future with Mr. Dan Johnson, Jensen, whatever his name is, when
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 101 of 136
he develops, even if it does connect into Selatir, you still wouldn't have the vehicle trips
to make it a collector. I don't see that happening.
Zaremba: Well, in that case I would support not having a stub street.
Rohm: Yeah, I --
Zaremba: If there is no opportunity for it to become a major access road
Rohm: I think that just removes some confusion, does it not? Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I did have another point that -- I did want to talk about the stub street.
I had just another clarification. Gordon mentioned in his presentation that staff didn't put
in a condition about access to Bott Lane. There is quite a bit of talk about that on page
nine. Now, he's right, there is not a site specific condition, but I believe the intent of Joe
was to have a condition that actually restricts access to that single family home to be
from their new public street, whatever that's called. There is two sections in there. One
is on access and the one is existing residential buildings. The first one says access to
the site is through Kingsbridge Drive and all lots shall take access to internal streets and
bollards shall be placed on the existing access to Bott Lane. That sounds like a
condition that just didn't make it to the condition stage. And, then, the second part just
says that the house needs to be addressed off of that new public street. I'm reading this
saying he just forgot to put that in as a 1.1 point whatever and just would ask that you
add that as a condition. I think it was just an oversight on his part. But the applicant did
point that out, that it wasn't in there and I don't think it was left out intentionally, I think it
was left out unintentionally.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would say precedent of history, we don't usually add an access,
we trade accesses. With the new access available to them and, as Caleb points out,
addressing it off of the new street, I would agree with staff that the old access should
disappear.
Borup: I also understood by the staff report that one of the concerns was the rest of the
subdivision having access to that existing -- does having that landscape strip on there
answer some of that concern? Because no one else would be able to access it, other
than the existing house.
Hood: Yeah. It was kind of a spite strip and I wasn't sure if even the irrigation company
could access it, then, from the new public street. I mean it's a really narrow landscape
lot that -- it may be prohibiting them from accessing it at that point, too. So, I'm not quite
sure what's going on there.
Borup: They have got access -- I mean irrigation has access now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 102 of 136
Hood: Yeah. From Cloverdale they could, I mean, follow that same road up. I'm just
saying if they came in from the other way and down, now there would not be any way to
get to that lateral.
Borup: Does this continue on down here?
Hood: Yeah. Yeah. The Nine Mile goes all the way out to Eagle Road.
Borup: So, they could get to it from Eagle and Cloverdale.
Hood: They may be able to or Kingsbridge Drive goes north across there. I think there
is a driveway access there. Again, I'm not sure what --
Borup: Well, see, I understand it's an ordinance, I -- I think all -- I'm assuming all they
are asking for is some flexibility, because if he's heading to Meridian he's not going to
use that access anyway, he's going to go through the subdivision roads. I assume the
only time he'd maybe want to use it -- I mean if he's heading to the freeway, he's going
to go to Eagle. You know, maybe he wants to go out in the desert in the southwest -- or
southeast I mean.
Rohm: We haven't closed the Public Hearing. I don't think we did.
Borup: No.
Hendrickson: Our house burned down two years ago --
Rohm: You need to -- you need to first --
Hendrickson: Don Hendrickson. 4240 Bott Lane.
Rohm: Thank you.
Hendrickson: Our house burned down here two years ago and the emergency vehicles
had to come down that canal bank to get to our house. If I have to go out Kingsbridge
and all the emergency vehicles have to come in that way, it's a real -- a real problem
and --
Borup: How so? Isn't that shorter for them?
Hendrickson: No. They come from -- they came from Whitney and they came from the
new station there at Eagle Road is where they are going to come from.
Borup: Right. So, you want them to go an extra two miles to get to your place?
Hendrickson: I just want as many access points as possible for emergency vehicles.
use that road and have used that road for 16 years. That's my connectivity to all my
Meridian Planning & Zoning 40 •
April 6, 2006
Page 103 of 136
neighbors, too. I have two young children and all their buds are over there on Bott
Lane. And I don't really want a fence bordering that canal.
Borup: Well, I would feel the same way if I was in your situation.
Hendrickson: You know, I got Labrador retrievers, the
y go into y.
It's the way that property has been for 50 years. The emergency t vehicles that camhat canal every e in
there drew their water out of that canal to sup
was too late. It burned to the ground and I lost everyth ng I ownedse fire, even though it
Borup: I didn't have any other questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Quickly. Very quickly.
Elliott: With your forbearance, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'd just like
to speak briefly following up on what Don Hendrickson just said. We are completely
willing to have the stub street blocked until it becomes a public street. So, this access
that exists is unique and only for the Hendrickson property. This matter about keeping
them off of Bott Lane was never discussed with staff. We had no inkling of this being a
concern of staff until it arrived in the staff report I think it was either Friday or Monday.
So, it was never discussed at a pre -app. We --
Borup: Well, they are not going to be able to cover every item the pre -app.
Elliott: Well, this is fairly critical, because this is -- this is the existing property, it's not
just equal access to the west along the canal, it's an unimproved dirt service road.
When you go to the south along the canal it's a paved roadway. The public road comes
in about two-thirds of the way on Bott Lane toward this property, so there is a short gap
that is canal property. Also, this property was sold -- the canal, the 60 foot strip, was
sold to the canal company at the time that ten acre property owner was a shareholder of
the canal company. So, I think they have a very good argument that they own and still
own a share of the road that goes along the canal all the way out to the point it gets to
the public roadway of Bott Lane. So, we are providing them public access on our new
street, we think they should be able to retain the access that they have used historically
far before the Hendricksons bought the property. That road has been there and used
for access to that ten acres since the canal was built. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just looked at the pre -app meeting notes from August 31st,
2005, and although we don't always catch everything, we did catch that one, actually.
There is three items that are mentioned on here. One is a stub to the north and to the
southeast. The second one is to relinquish your interest in Bott Lane. And the third one
is traffic calming to Kingsbridge Drive. So, it was -- the applicant was put on notice in
August of last year that we would be taking away Bott Lane. And if you like the access,
it's not in the best interest of the city. So, I mean that's -- we are kind of changing and
that's why the condition was put in there and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 104 of 136
Elliott: If I can just respond to this gentleman's comment. The context of that
discussion was the rest of the subdivision. The 17 lots would not have access to Bott
Lane.
Hood: Anything in the subdivision.
Elliott: Our understanding was that Hendrickson would always have access.
Hood: The intent was anything on that property, because you don't look at the existing
house as different than the subdivision. It's a lot and block in the subdivision.
Rohm: Please come forward.
C. Hendrickson: My name is Christine Hendrickson. I reside at 4240 Bott Lane and I
would just like to reply to the planner. We, as the selling agent, selling party to the
agent, we were never addressed by the planning department or the planners never
came and talked to myself or my husband about having to either be readdressed or to
be rezone into the subdivision at all. In February -- before February, before this
hearing, this is the first we have heard about it.
Borup: But, ma'am, that wouldn't be their responsibility to come to your house and tell
you that --
C. Hendrickson: Whose would it be, then?
Borup: It would the person that's making application for the subdivision.
C. Hendrickson: So, they should have notified us, then?
Borup: Well, yes.
C. Hendrickson: Is what you're saying.
Borup: Yes. It wouldn't be a city planner to do that.
C.
res Hendrickson:
ndcrickson: So, the city planner wouldn't actually come out and speak to the whole
Y
Borup: That's what this Public Hearing is for.
C. Hendrickson: Well, I'm opposing that, then. I'd like it on record that my husband and
I want to oppose that.
Borup: So, you would like to see this application denied?
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 105 of 136
C. Hendrickson: Well, we don't understand why we have got to be readdressed, for one
thing.
Borup: Oh, you said you're opposing this whole hearing, you'd like to see it denied?
C. Hendrickson: No, sir. If you listen to what I'm saying, I'm saying I'm opposing what
the planner has said, that we didn't know anything about that we had to lose our right of
access from and to Bott Lane that has been there hereditary for over 50 years, the
people that owned the property before my husband and I, that's what I'm -- that's what
I'm opposing. I'm not opposing the development, I'm opposing the fact that we as
residents there have lost the right to our access on Bott Lane and we are opposing that.
Borup: Well, I don't see that as you losing the right, that you're voluntarily giving it up to
have this project developed. They kind of go hand in hand.
C. Hendrickson: Well, we didn't voluntarily give it up either.
Rohm: Boy, I thought we were about done. Okay. Let's see. Where do we go now?
Borup: Well, I'm looking at the staff report to see what things that -- if there is anything
that we have discussed tonight that we would modify. I have only seen one area of
discussion. Mr. Zaremba, you had something else?
Zaremba: Yeah. Just a comment on the most recent subject. I would propose
considering that access to Bott Lane could remain until the stub street, Hendrickson,
connects to something south or east. At that point there would be two ways for them to
leave their property. I mean once they got to Hendrickson they could go north and,
then, west, or they could go south and, then, east, which, essentially, would remove the
need to use Bott Lane at that point.
Borup: I agree with that. Actually, I think they should be allowed to keep use of Bott
Lane. I mean it's only one house. It's -- but I don't know if that would need to be a
special condition or what -- what it would need to be, but -- and maybe it would be on a
temp -- like you say, on a temporary basis.
Rohm: Well, it doesn't appear as if --
Borup: But it's not -- but it's not a staff -- it's not in the requirements, is it?
Hood: It's not a condition now.
Borup: Right.
Hood: So -- and probably just to clarify, since we had the discussion, whatever you
want to do we should make it a condition or an allowance, just so at least it's addressed
in here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 106 of 136
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb.
Borup: Still, in my mind the concern would be that all the other lots would be able to
access it and if they have that landscape strip there that would prevent that. Probably
just the way you worded that would cover it, wouldn't it? The only other thing I noticed
that was -- and there is probably something else, but the question on the common lot,
the park, the interior park. The staff report calls for eliminating it and making Lot 3 -- the
applicant came up with a new design, which I thought made sense. Makes it real
central. It's not a large -- it's not a large subdivision, it's not like one that's going to have
a hundred kids there and I don't see -- I don't see this as a park where the police are
going to have a lot of concern. I mean there is not going to be a lot of problems. So, I
guess what I'm saying is I would be -- I would be fine with their new -- their new design.
Moe: I'd concur as well.
Borup: Was there any other items?
Rohm: I don't think so.
Zaremba: Do we want to give them an Opportunity to approach ACHD and, then, us
see the result of that?
Borup: I don't care. Personally, if your-- if you -- if other Commissioners want to, I'm
fine either way, but I -- in this case I dont feel a need to, because it's not really changing
the design of the plan.
Rohm: We could just make it a condition for recommendation that they get the waiver
from Ada County to the stub street to the north and move it on to City Council.
Borup: And as part of that have emergency access. I mean that was the sketch that
was shown to us.
Zaremba: With the knuckle and the --
Moe: Based upon their emergency access and, then, the knuckle configuration that
was shown on that sketch. I think that would be fine.
Borup: Which would provide pedestrian access to the north for --
Rohm: Well, I think we have got enough to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Well, I was just going to comment that we haven't discussed Commissioner
Borup's thought that if there is height restrictions on some of the properties, it would be
fair to have them on all of them, and I kind of felt that way before he said it. I was going
to ask the same question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 107 of 136
Rohm: I, myself, I support the developer's position, that as a condition of development
they agreed not to put multiple story houses adjacent to the lots next to the
Hendricksons and the balance of the lots are setback far enough from adjacent property
owners that even though it may sound obtrusive right now, I don't think at the end of the
day it will be nearly as offensive as what it sounds on paper.
Borup: That same argument applies to the Hendrickson's house. It's far away also.
Rohm: Other than they are the ones that are selling the property.
Borup: Right.
Rohm: They kind of hold the hammer on that. That's just my opinion.
Borup: One option may -- well, I don't know. This is getting too complicated. I was
going to say if the restriction on those other interior lots was removed, I would be in
favor of removing it on the lots to the east also. Otherwise, I like the idea of restricting it
on both. I mean if it works for one, it works for the other.
Rohm: I think, then, we should probably close the Public Hearing and make a motion to
that effect and we will move forward.
Borup: I move we -- Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on Items No.
AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both related to Hendrickson Subdivision. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT
Rohm: Mr. Borup, Commissioner Borup, you're up.
Borup: For what?
Rohm: Making a motion. I think you have captured all of the concerns and --
Borup: Well, I haven't written anything that well. Okay. Then, maybe we need to go
through and mention a few things, make sure we are all in agreement. We talked about
the park. How about police department's comments?
Zaremba: I don't know if I said, but I can support the drawing that they presented
tonight with a new configuration of the park.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 108 of 136
Borup: Well, actually, that probably does say. That says Lot 5, Block 2, shall be
redesigned to allow for surveillance. So, we just need to say that we feel they have
done that.
Zaremba: We accept the drawing presented at this hearing.
Borup: Okay. Well, I'm a little hesitant to -- I'm a little unsure on the stub street. I don't
know, I -- without knowing how that other property is going to develop --
Zaremba: Well, that would actually be a decision. If the stub street goes away, they
must access Selatir.
Borup: Well -- and if it's only going to -- if it is going to develop to one acre lots, then, I
feel it's not a big -- probably not a big issue. So, how would that be worded?
Rohm: I think just --
Borup: Just leave it like the staff report says and, then, maybe sa
point, basically, leave it like it is and add unless removed by ACRD? -the second bullet
Rohm: I think that would work.
Borup: Actually, I'm reading the ACHD report in that -- just a minute. We need to get
that in from the -- where is that mentioned in the staff report?
Moe: I'm looking for it right now.
Hood: There is no condition for the stub street in the staff report.
Borup: It incorporated the ACHD report; right?
Hood: Correct. And condition 1.1.1 is approving the preliminary plat that shows the
stub street, so it's not explicitly there, but it's there.
Borup: And then -- I can't believe I want to add this. I have always been opposed to
this and I'm going to make it a motion. Would we add it to 2.22 on restricting --
restricting buildings to one story on the eastern boundary?
Zaremba: The twos are public works comments.
Borup: Oh.
Zaremba: I'd probably back up and make it --
Borup: Yeah. I thought I was still at the -- yeah, I meant to do the ones --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 109 of 136
Zaremba: Make it at the 1.1 something.
Borup: Yeah. Well, should that even be -- that really shouldn't be -- would that normally
be on the preliminary plat? We don't have a development agreement here, do we?
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my only concern is if you limit it to
one story, I think we have had issues in the past between one story, bonus rooms, and
the like. If you want to limit it by height, which is what our ordinances usually cover, that
would probably be easier from an enforcement standpoint, than trying to eliminate it by
a story.
Borup: Well, that's another reason I have always been opposed to limiting it to
anything, especially the two story. You can have a one story that's just as tall.
Hood: Just to continue that thought -- and as the applicant pointed out earlier, the R-2
does allow a certain height limit. If you want to do something that goes and restricts it
even further, there is a development agreement and that has conditions on page eight.
So, if you were going to modify or restrict that, that's probably the best place is to put
that in the DA.
Borup: Okay. I just thought of another way. How about we word it that the building
height -- the buildings on Block 3 will be restricted to the same height as the buildings
on Block 2 and leave it at that. I think that covers everything that I feel the -- do the
Commissioners understand what I did there? And you said it should go under eight or
can it go -- eight under where? I'm sorry, I missed where you were referring to. Oh,
page eight.
Hood: And just add -- you'd have to add a new bullet point.
Borup: Which page eight? Well, that's in the -- that's in the analysis; right? Okay. Oh,
there we go. All right. I don't know -- okay, Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of files AZ 06-012 and PP 06-0101 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date April 6, 2006, with the following modifications. One, on page
eight, a final bullet point, say the homes on Block 3 will be restricted to the same height
as required for the homes on Block 2. Under site specific requirements, page one, that
1.1 -- 1.1.4 be deleted. Actually, 1.1.5 be deleted also. Isn't that what we were talking
about?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 110 of 136
Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, at least one of those -- the first two lots are still
going to have to share a common driveway. I don't --
Borup: That's why I was confused there, because I only -- I didn't have good notes on
that.
Hood: I don't remember in the new drawing if the other two share a common driveway
or not.
Borup: The first half of -- the first half of that sentence would stay. One and two, Block
2, would still share a common drive. Lots 4 and -- the second half of that, Lot 4 and 5
share a common driveway, would be deleted. And, then, the last sentence would still
stay. Meet the UDC. So, I think -- yeah. I think -- everybody understood what -- and
along with that, under the police department comments, 4.1, where it says redesign to
allow for surveillance, the Commission feels that the application has shown a redesign
of the park area that complies with this requirement. And, then, under 7.1.2, second
bullet point, add at the end of that paragraph: Unless stub street is removed by ACRD.
And if that is done, then, an emergency access will be added as shown in the design
sketch.
Hood: Mr. Chair, that's good at the end of the second bullet, then, because there is,
actually, three stub streets that are talked about there and --
Borup: Oh.
Hood: -- I assumed that, I just wanted to make the record clear.
Borup: Yes. Did I do it right? I said at the end of the second bullet.
Hood: I didn't catch second bullet. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I did say it right. Wow. What did I leave off?
Rohm: I think that's it.
Borup: End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, to include all staff comments with modifications
as stated in the motion.
Borup: There was one other thing I was going to add.
Rohm: Oh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 111 of 136
Borup: Weren't we going to add some -- did we get the comment there about access to
Bott Lane? I don't think so.
Moe: No, we did not.
Zaremba: I would suggest allowing it until there is --
Borup: Okay. I --
Zaremba: -- another connection to the south.
Borup: That was my intention to do that, even though I know staff is not in favor of that.
So, what did we end at? One point -- at the end of the -- at the end of site specific
requirements --
Moe: Yes.
Borup: -- for preliminary plat. 1.1.11. That we allow access from the existing
Hendrickson house to Bott Lane, restricted to that house only, until other access may
become available in the future.
Zaremba: I would rephrase that until Hendrickson Road has access to the south and
the east by public road.
Borup: Okay. Incorporate Commissioner Zaremba's comment in there.
Zaremba: The second accepts the change.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward on to City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, to include all staff comments and
including modifications in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: I think we are done.
Borup: Wow. You got to be kidding.
Moe: No, we got five more to go.
Rohm: Yes, we do. And we are going to skip those and we will need one more motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just as a thought for discussion, would we want to poll the
audience and see which item it is that they are here for?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 112 of 136
Rohm: Sure.
Zaremba: And perhaps discuss that item and, then, continue all the others?
Borup: The two commercial ones will go real fast, whether it happens tonight or next
time. They will be quick.
Rohm: All right. There isn't anything fresh right now.
Borup: Is there anybody here for Cabella?
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I just was looking at the sign -in sheet. Only the applicants are
here for Items 16, 17, and 20. There were at least three people -- excuse me, 16, 17
and 22. There was at least three people signed up for Cabella. It's up to you if you
want to take that testimony. At least the applicants for those other three items are here
and there is not opposition that was here at anytime tonight for those three and I think
we could rip through those three at least, and then, it's up to you about Cabella. That
one is pretty clean as well. But I'll leave it up to you.
Rohm: Ready?
Borup: If we could do it fast. Was there a sign-up sheet on Cabella? Any opposition?
Rohm: Yeah.
Johnson: Three.
Borup: Three in opposition? And are those people here? Oh. Whatever you say, Mr.
Chairman.
Rohm: Well, let's just take Item 17 and we will -- one item at a time and no guarantees.
Zaremba: Actually, 16 would be next, sir.
Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 06-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail uses as determined by Development Agreement for
Bridgetower Commercial by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast
corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
Rohm: Sixteen? All right. Sixteen. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on
CUP 06-009, related to Bridgetower and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm covering for Joe
on this one, so I will be brief. I don't think there is too many issues. The applicant has
applied for 27,486 square feet of commercial uses, including a drive-thru for
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 113 of 136
Bridgetower commercial development in Bridgetower Subdivision No. 7 on Lot 2 of
Block 1. Joe's report has -- as its special considerations has an item about parking lot
landscaping. Staff is supportive of the proposed landscaping and that there is one
recommended change on the drive-thru, that there be a landscape planter used to
delineate the traffic movements. Looking at the site plan, it looks like that planter exists,
so I don't know if there was communication between Joe and the applicant there to get
that changed prior to this hearing or what, but it does look like that planter he wants to
guide the movement of traffic in a drive-thru was there, so I think that I'll stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? No questions. Would the applicant, please, come
forward. And you have got 15 minutes, but I certainly hope you don't --
Davis: It's not needed.
Borup: The only thing I want to know if you have got any problem with the staff report
Davis: I do not. Andrew Davis. BRS Architects. 1010 South Allante, Boise, Idaho.
The only issue is the directional planter. Always on the plan, apparently wasn't clearly
delineated. It was always intended to be there. We have no issues with the staff report
and I'd just ask that you approve it with all the conditions and Findings of Fact in the
staff report.
Rohm: Thank you. That's perfect.
Zaremba: I do have a couple questions, though, Mr. Chairman. I'll make them short.
I'm not understanding the directional thing. Is there two-way traffic -- two-way traffic
through here?
Davis: No.
Zaremba: So, it will be signed for one-way traffic only?
Davis: Correct.
Zaremba: Only in --
Davis: Only in through the drive-thru. The planter is intended to get keep anyone from
coming through the other direction.
Zaremba: Okay. Good. And, then, my other question is is there provision for off-street
loading or will all of these businesses take their supplies through the front door?
Davis: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 114 of 136
Zaremba: Isn't there a requirement in the UDC for -- well, there is a requirement for off-
street loading, but it isn't specific, necessarily, to the back door, is it?
Hood: No. I think it requires either one -- depending on the size of the building, a type
A or B type parking stall, and I just -- I don't remember when -- what the threshold is to
require that. I can look it up here.
Zaremba: Sorry about that.
Rohm: Zaremba.
Zaremba: While he's looking that up, I, actually, have one other question that's really
just a curiosity.
Davis: Okay.
Zaremba: What is this bump out? What's the purpose of the bump out there?
Davis: To be honest with you, I don't have the answer to that. I'm, actually, filling in for
someone else in my office and not incredibility familiar with the project, so I don't know
what that is.
Zaremba: Probably, eventually, could be a bus pull out, but the drawing shows a car in
it.
Davis: That may be a loading space. I'm not entirely sure.
Wilson: It doesn't look like we are going to get an answer --
Borup: Well, it's -- I found it, the table. Gross square foot of floor area. What are we
talking about here -- floor area of square feet; do we know?
Wilson: Building B is 13,456. Building A is 14,030.
Borup: So, anything under 36 is a type B loading, which means not less than 15 feet in
width. Whoa. Sixty-five feet in length?
Zaremba: Well, that would be a semi.
Borup: So, that's saying that a building that's 100 square feet needs to have a semi be
able to access it? By requirement?
Zaremba: Does that mean a building size with one tenant or -- this is divided up into a
lot of smaller tenants.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 115 of 136
Borup: Well, it says zero to 36,000. So, that would be a hundred square foot -- well, I
mean would require a semi loading point?
Zaremba: That doesn't seem quite fair.
Hood: I know this is another item that's on our clean up things for clarification. I would
guess that we just maybe -- if they don't need it for this use and there is a bunch of
small tenants and they can get UPS to just do a couple little jobs during the day for all
these businesses -- we are working on cleaning up that portion to clarify when that's
needed, if it's a single tenant and you have up to 36,000 square feet or something
maybe one is required, but I think that's one that slipped through inadvertently without
some further clarification on when they are required.
Borup: Yeah. It makes sense to me, because it says from zero to 36,000.
Zaremba: Well, let me just be clear. In approving the CUP, they would have to divide
this building up as depicted; right? Or would they have the option of combining them?
Can we add that as a condition?
Hood: You could add it as a condition. Those are just, I imagine, probably proposed
and based if someone needed two or three. I mean they are just temporary walls. They
could knock them down and -- that's just what they will divide. They will have those
available and if you want to buy a block or even the whole building, probably, or lease it.
Really, what the Conditional Use Permit, we are looking more at what the building looks
like and the uses that go in there. Not if there were six of the same use, but what is the
use that's going in there and what does the building look like. That's the main reason
that this is before you.
Borup: Well, they are asking for a restaurant use, which is not going to be a semi, but,
you know, it could be a large delivery truck.
Zaremba: And possibly quite a few of them.
Borup: Well, what's all this access in the back of the building? There is a drive aisle
back there, isn't there? Well, sir, could you tell us on the east side of the building is
there access to the east side of that building?
Davis: The building on the east side of the plat.
Moe: Building A.
Zaremba: Building A, I believe.
Borup: Yes. Well, actually, both.
Zaremba: Well, is there back door access --
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 116 of 136
Wilson: Commissioner Borup, if you look at the landscape plan it's pretty clear that
there isn't access to the back of either one of those buildings.
Borup: Okay. There it is. I was looking at that when I -- and the writing was covering
up what could have been an entrance.
Zaremba: Well, I may have been misunderstanding. If your -- there is access to the
backs of the buildings?
Borup: No. No. This is all landscape.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's what I thought.
Borup: Well, you have got enough. What do you want to do?
Zaremba: Send me home. Well, you know, I would be perfectly comfortable if they are
going to be small units, but, you know, UPS could deliver in the front. The difficulty is
are they going to --
Borup: Restaurants.
Zaremba: -- become large restaurants or, you know, five or six of these are going to be
combined into one -- one space, then, there is going to be some serious delivery issues.
Davis: One comment I would have on this is that the restaurant deliveries typically take
place early in the morning before any of these businesses are actually open, so it would
not interfere with the use of the parking area.
Zaremba: That's a very good point. Thank you. That helps.
Borup: So, you're saying, then, the delivery trucks get parked out in the drive aisle?
Wilson: Yes.
Zaremba: Even though I'm the one that brought it up, I can go along with that.
Moe: Pardon me?
Zaremba: I said even though I'm the one that brought it up, I can go along with that.
Moe: I would agree. I don't think it's that much of an issue in regard to this one.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there any public testimony to this application?
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 117 of 136
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the public hearing on CUP 06-009 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-
009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6,
2006, and the site plan labeled CU -1, dated January 3, 2006, with no modifications.
And do we need to ask --
Moe: They are already on there.
Zaremba: Uh?
Moe: They are there.
Zaremba: Oh, they are already here. Okay. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-009, to include all staff
comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 06-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
restaurant / retail / general commercial uses as determined by
Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Commercial by Monterey,
LLC — 2240 and 2300 Everest Lane:
Rohm: Well, that was a 20 minute one for five minutes. All right. Here we go. Next.
At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-008 and begin with the staff
report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, covering one
of Joe's applications. This is a Conditional Use Permit for a request for office uses
allowed on Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, of Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12, by Monterey,
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 118 of 136
LLC. They have applied for a Conditional Use Permit for two office buildings with
associated landscaping and parking improvements. Joe has some notes here that staff
is supportive of the application in terms of the design and review standards that
because this is along an entryway corridor, these buildings are subject to administrative
design review. He is in support of the requirements for the design review. Does have
concern about future phases of this and parking in relation to Chinden. That section
requires that no more than 70 percent of the off-street parking area shall be located
between the front facade of the building and abutting streets. The applicant shall certify
that this condition is met for the future phase which fronts towards Chinden. Other than
that, he's in support of the design review. Cross -access agreement be required
between the subject parcel and the parcel to the east he's also conditioned that and I
think that will do it. I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Carter: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm Bill Carter, 10221 West Emerald,
Suite 100, Boise. 83705. 1 don't have any comments to add to staffs report on the
project, but I'd be happy to take your questions.
Moe: Are you in full agreement with the staff report?
Carter: Yes. I just have one small comment. It's minor. On page three of the staff
report, very bottom, Section I, second line, I think that should reference second
sentence, the access to the site will be from existing curb cuts on Everest Avenue and,
then, delete reference to McMillan Road. I have also had preliminary discussions with
counsel for the owner of the eastern parcel and they have agreed verbally to cross -
access. Shared access. Shared parking.
Borup: Shared parking, too? They were here earlier and said, yes, they would agree to
cross -access to --
Zaremba: The parcel in between --
Carter: No.
Borup: Oh, you're talking the other lot that --
Carter: I'm talking about the lot immediately east of ours.
Borup: All right. I understand.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning 0
April 6, 2006 Is
Page 119 of 136
Zaremba: I do have a question. The staff report mentions that they are planning to
submit an application to rezone and that makes sense to me. When this originally was
done we were zoning things all one zone and, then, making a use exception, and it
makes more sense to identify the proper zone.
Carter: Correct.
Zaremba: But can you tell me what zone you're going to be asking for?
Carter: I believe it's L -O.
Zaremba: L -O? Okay.
Borup: That would be appropriate
Zaremba: My question to staff would be if they, actually, zone it to the proper
underlying zone, can we remove the restriction that everything has to be a CUP? The
reason behind that was because it was a use exception.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, that condition
was, actually, part of the PUD. So, I have been in discussions with the owner there.
They are talking about doing a CUP modification to basically remove that condition once
the L -O zone happens. But right now just because it gets the zoning you don't remove
it, because it was, again, a condition of the overall PUD.
Zaremba: Yeah. Actually, my question was for a future question, not to remove it now,
but to incorporate it into the --
Hood: They are working on it, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it for me.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Carter: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: I had one question. Not for you, for staff. Sorry. And that was a staff comment
on requiring the cross -access to the property to the east. Are we talking about a
property owner that's part of -- part of this property or the property owner to the east on
the previous application we had? Or both? Put a private road is what we had
discussed earlier. There would be cross -access to the private road. I don't know if that
was in one of the conditions here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 120 of 136
Wilson: And this is a separate issue. This would be cross -access just between the
parcels --
Borup: Right.
Wilson: --for parking flow.
Borup: So, do we need to add that on the access on Everett to the property to the east?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, the cross -access agreement's already been taken
care of with the plat for Lochsa, whatever phase this was -- Lochsa 12. Thank you.
They recorded it for all of their lots. Now, the question was --
Borup: Everett Street or --
Hood: The other parcel that wasn't part of Lochsa had --
Borup: So, this -- this development has agreed to it. The other one needed to agree
was all?
Hood: Yes. Or reciprocate something there, yes.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-008.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded a couple of times that we close the Public
Hearing on CUP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 06-008 as presented in the staff report, including the proposed
elevations, for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, and the site plan labeled A-1, dated
January 13, 2006. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning .
April 6, 2006
Page 121 of 136
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-008, associated with
Lochsa Falls commercial. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Are you guys sure you want to do this last one? Oh, my gosh.
Borup: We could see how much controversy there is and if it's something that's going to
drag on, we could continue it at that time.
Moe: As I understand, there were three people in opposition that did leave.
Borup: I think they are all still here. At least two of them are.
Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16
acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential)
for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC — northeast
corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47
single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development,
LLC — northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
Rohm: Okay. Here we go. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-
014 and PP 06-012, both related to Cabella Creek Subdivision and begin with the staff
report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will make this very
brief. It's a pretty clean subdivision. It's -- part of this was previously reviewed last year
by you as the McGhee property. They applied for annexation only. McGhee and
Carrington, actually, which I think his name is Mark Carrington, owned the property
here. They have now done a plat and acquired an additional five or so acmes here and
submitted a subdivision plat off of Victory Road and Mesa Way. There really aren't any
significant conditions to speak of. They are providing a multi -use pathway along Ten
Mile through the project, which will tie into the multi -use pathway through the
Messina -Tuscany Village development across Victory Road. Probably the most
significant thing is this -- these are the first four five acre lots within Kachina Estates to
actually redevelop in the City of Meridian, as you can see from the zoning map.
Everything else is still zoned RUT in Ada County in the subdivision, but the lot sizes are
sufficient size -- I believe it's an R-4 zone. All of the lot sizes meet and exceed the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 122 of 136
minimums for the zone. Like I said, it's a pretty clean subdivision, and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Borup: Just one. We received a -- wasn't there an conceptual plan at the annexation?
Do you remember? This looks familiar enough. There was a conceptual plan. Is this
substantially the same as what we saw then.
Hood: No. It is significantly different and significantly better.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: Yeah. The annexation was denied, because they didn't have a plat associated
with it, so that's why you're seeing a new annexation application and a preliminary plat
this time, because Council denied those applications.
Borup: Council denied it. All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a question probably directed at Mr. Cole. On page
three you make the comment that a portion of this site is within the FEMA hundred year
flood plain zone AE. The majority of the site is in flood plain zone X. Is that X better or
worse than AE?
Cole: Commissioner Zaremba, zone X is better. It's -- it's a flood plain elevation without
a base flood. It's a flood plain designation without an elevation set to it. It's generally
areas of low lying ponding in a hundred year storm event. There are no -- FEMA
doesn't require any elevation certification. Nothing in our code requires any remedies
for the flood zone X. So, flood X is -- is not a bad thing. It still has some ponding. The
AE requires certain things that during the building
process
certification by a surveyor for the floor of the hou eto be one foot above the AE flood
elevation. There is just a small portion of some lots -- I'm not sure which the lot and
block are. It's right through here where it just -- on the plat -- the preliminary plat it's
hard to tell, but it looks like it just barely touches these lots through here and that's why I
made a comment, basically, that they should revise those lots to pull them in a foot or
so to get them completely out of the flood plain and, then, they would be fine.
Otherwise, they are going to have to comply with those building regulations in the flood
plain elevation certification.
Borup: Even if it's just in the set -- I mean outside the setback?
Cole: If one square inch of the property lies within the AE flood plain, it's determined
that the entire lot has to meet flood plain elevations.
Borup: Well, that's really logical.
Cole: Probably more detail than you wanted.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 123 of 136
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Cronin: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, thanks for staying so late and
seeing our presentation for annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat of the Cabella
Creek Subdivision. Do you have that pretty picture, Caleb?
Hood: Sorry. I was just checking. Our administrative assistant did not put it in as I
asked her twice today. Sorry about that.
Cronin: That's okay. We'll do with this. This is fine. The other one, the -- not the one,
maybe, that doesn't show the landscape plan.
Borup: That is the landscape plan.
Cronin: It does not -- it's all relative, I guess. The one before that. There we go. As
Caleb previously mentioned, we had come to you with an annexation and rezone tied to
a conceptual plat and at that point was approved by the P&Z Commission and moved
forward. Since, then, we have gone somewhat back to the drawing board and remolded
this with your guys' comment, as well as City Council's, neighborhood meeting, public
testimony, as well as working closely with staff on the planning level and a few of these
items that have changed that we hope address some of these concerns that have been
brought up or just some comments that were brought up were to, one, limit the amount
of direct lot access onto Mesa Way, which is an existing local road and in doing so we
just -- we were going to allow the existing home, which takes access off of Mesa Way,
to continue using its access. Secondly, to help the transition into the subdivision, which
is within the Kachina Estates Subdivision, we were providing a 20 foot wide landscape
buffer that's going to be treed and bermed for purposes of transition, as well as the
majority of the lots along Mesa Way are meeting the zoning designation within an R-2
zone as far as lot size, configuration, et cetera. And, also, we had provided a stub to
the property for this five acre parcel, this Carrington
piece, as well as one to
property of the Agnews. Let me see here. We also feel that this meets the d nshe
ity
addressed within the Comprehensive Plan as a low density. Currently our gross density
is approximately 2.5 units per acre, well within the R-4 zone. And we are also providing
approximately 22 percent open space as designated here on this map as the darker
shaded areas and though it is within an existing subdivision, to the north it's Salmon
Rapids, which is an R-4, Tuscany is south of Victory Road as an R-8. And, then,
beyond -- if I could see the aerial. This is also an R-8. And over in this area is an R-8.
And another concern that was brought up in one of the neighborhood meetings was
where we were going to bring our roadway out onto Mesa Way. That other one would
do fine. Thanks. And one of the concerns was that the added traffic from internal
streets coming onto the exiting local street of Mesa might cause headlights to be
flashing into an existing home that wasn't used to that and I'm speaking on behalf of the
developer that he would be more than willing to work with them to provide any sort of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 124 of 136
landscape or buffer that might help reduce any of that nuisance as they see fit. At this
time I'll stand for any questions you or staff may have.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I assume, then, you must agree with all comments from staff, then?
Cronin: I just have one. Caleb, could you -- I just kind of noticed this today, after my
long sit here. On -- let see here. It's on page two of Exhibit B. I just may want a
clarification and -- in item number 1.2.3. Maybe it just can be there without interpreting
it a hundred percent.
Moe: What number was that again?
Cronin: That was on the conditions of approval item 1.2.3, dealing with the amenity
ponds that we are proposing.
Hood: And the clarification would be that this is -- those are amenity ponds. There is a
difference between the amenity ponds and, then, like storm water drainage ponds and
those ponding up and not -- and being improved with sand, rather than hydroseed and
those types of things. So, that's -- the intent of this is to not allow those drainage basins
to be counted towards open space, unless they are grassed. So, this free of wet ponds
doesn't mean you can't do ponds, as long as they are amenities.
Cronin: Okay. That cleared it up. Thanks.
Borup: So, the intention is you're going to divert from Ten Mile and -- during the canal
season those are active ponds, is that --
Cronin: These ponds here we are showing would be my -- before reading that comment
I would think it would store ACHD storm water in them as wet ponds, but that may need
to be rethought and, if anything, have them just grass lined swales, as the code says.
Borup: Okay.
Cronin: So, we meet that requirement. Kind of spoke of earlier where you have got to
have an intention where if it --
Borup: Right. So, they are not a pond, then. They are drainage -- your intention is to
be a drainage area?
Cronin: Unless we can find another way. It depends. Because it's relatively shallow
ground water out there and until we have a full on geotechnical investigation to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 125 of 136
determine what it is that's out there to kind of further develop how we were going to deal
with runoff produced by the roadway.
Rohm:
Thank you.
Cronin:
Anything further?
Rohm:
Not right now.
Cronin:
Okay. Thanks.
Rohm:
Don't go anywhere.
Cronin:
I'll stay right here.
Rohm: Okay. Now, let's see. Public testimony. Aneke Binford
Binford: Hello. My name is Aneke Binford and I reside with my husband and children at
3101 South Mesa Way. We bought our property not only because of the five acre lot
size, but because all the homes in the subdivision also had large lots, which created an
open space feeling. We also purchased, because of the limited number of home sites
and traffic on this dead-end street. We understood that growth was inevitable and that
the surrounding farm land would eventually become subdivisions with standard size lots
and all the houses and traffic to go with them. However, we never expected that such a
subdivision would be built within our own fully established neighborhood. We are
opposed to the zoning change of the land located on Mesa Way to R-4. R-4 is not
consistent with the density of the established subdivision of Kachina Estates located on
Mesa Way. Kachina Estates consists of 13 home sites of five to seven acre lots, all on
one road, Mesa Way. Splitting this land and building homes that close together will
create a conflict of densities and will not be compatible with the existing esthetics and
feel of Kachina Estates Subdivision. While we appreciate that the developer has tried to
incorporate a few lot sizes slightly larger than most being in the R-4 sub, we feel they
still have not accomplished an adequate transition into the existing five acre subdivision.
We also appreciate that they have offered a berm and fencing along Mesa Way.
However, no amount of berming or fencing will hide the fact that there is an R-4
subdivision located within an existing five acre neighborhood. They keep talking about
the fact that R-4 is consistent with everything going on around Mesa Way and that is
true. However, it is not consistent with the existing five acre home sites on Mesa Way.
The proposed outlet street on Mesa located south of Ten Mile Creek, lines up directly
across from the circle driveway of our house. We are very concerned with the issue of
headlights flashing in our living room windows every time someone pulls out onto Mesa
Way. Another issue with this road's location is the fact that it cannot connect in the
future to Loggers Pass Street, which is a road that is stubbed in from Glacier Bay
Subdivision to the west of Mesa Way. We understand that interconnectivity is vital and
as it stands this outlet is not conducive to that, as you cannot extend this road through
our house. We would like to see an attempt made to relocate this outlet road to avoid
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 126 of 136
headlights into our house, as well as to achieve interconnectivity
conclusion, we request that the land located on and directly facing
acre lot sizes, rather than R-4. This would still allow for growth and
would stay more consistent with the existing neighborhood and
transition. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
in the future. In
Mesa Way be half
development, but
offer much more
Zaremba: May I ask a question? Are you aware does your subdivision have CC&Rs
that might restrict subdivision of the properties?
Binford: We don't. It was, I think, established in the 70s, so they didn't have anything in
there about that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Binford: We can put a mobile home back there, but that's about it.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: We'll take them in order. Ben Sullivan is next. Oh, he left. Okay. Come on up.
M. Binford: My name is Matt Binford. 3101 Mesa Way. Can I answer your CC&R
question?
Zaremba: Please.
M. Binford: So, within our CC&Rs it does allow and specify for one mobile home
dwelling per five acre lot. So, there is some restrictions currently in the CC&Rs. It only
limits it to one mobile home. That's as far as it goes within the CC&Rs. Our main
concern is -- I don't think we are so opposed to this development, it's how it's being
developed. Obviously, you have a challenge. You have got a five acre country
subdivision here the city is growing around. Understand that creates some problems in
transition in areas, so we'd like to add that that impact be minimal. I think the last one
we asked for an R-2 development. We'd like to make sure that those lots are not just R-
2, but are half acre lots, which I think exceeds the R-2 requirements. I think they have
some of these at 13,000 square feet. We'd like to see them upwards of 20,000 to ease
that transition to the five acre parcels. But back to -- could we go back to the another
slide? One more. Is there one that shows the subdivision behind us? Right there. So,
right now the roads that they have proposed -- how do you do this thing? So, right now
they have this -- this is our place right here. They have a road stubbed right to our -- the
front of our house. You can't landscape. You can't berm. We have got a circle drive,
we can't berm over our driveway, so what we would like to ask is there is a road back
here in Glacier Bay that's stubbed in, so, eventually, I'm guessing, this road will connect
through here at some point. So, what we'd like to ask them to do is move the road
probably a hundred feet to the north and go ahead so that way a future development -- I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 127 of 136
know my neighbor right here in this five acres is talking about developing. In that case.
this road at least will tie through to Glacier Bay where there is already a road stubbed.
As it is now you're stubbing right here right into our house and there is no way to,
basically, get around it with that road. And I think there is a requirement from the
highway department, those roads cannot be -- I think it's 150 feet -- they have to be
within -- coming into each other, basically, so by having the plan the way they do,
basically, would force bridges in the future, they would push that on the other side of the
creek. So, the other question I do have, the bridge that is on Mesa Way is probably
only 24, 25 feet across to their second access into Mesa Way, which is much in my
mind just a single car bridge. I don't know if there has been any studies to determine
how traffic can go through that bridge, but where it does cross Ten Mile, that's a pretty
narrow bridge today. So, anyway, that's -- those are our concerns. The big concern is,
obviously, the headlights in our house. Any questions? Thank you.
Rohm: Aaron McGhee. Martin Arliss? Have been spoken for. Oh. Okay. Anybody
else that would like to speak to this application? Oh. Absolutely. Yeah. That's why we
are here.
Cronin: Again, for the record, Eric Cronin. To the comments, I think when you look at
the overall density of our project -- I mean we are under three units per acre as the low
that the Comprehensive Plan or the future land use map designates for this area and
like I told you, around the Mesa Way we tried to create that transition with larger lots
that would meet the R-2 designation that was spoke of when we were at the Council
meeting. Let's see here. And as far as the location -- could I have the location of -- or
the -- yes. Thank you. The location of this street here -- actually, I'm sorry, I'm a little
tired. Could I have the original one, Caleb, sorry. Yeah. As far as stubs on -- when I
think of stubs, I think of stubs going into a bare piece of ground that could futurely
provide -- or could provide access and interconnectivity in the future to bare ground.
And with -- we are providing a connection to Mesa, is where I have indicated about here
and if one were to create this, it's hard to say how that would come about, but I don't
think lining it up would, basically, do any benefit. I'm not sure how that guy is going to
develop his land in the future and so I think we are -- we have tried to work well with the
Binfords, as well as along with some -- the comments and we present our application as
is and agree with the condition of approval recommended by staff and stand for any
other questions you guys might have.
Rohm: I guess my only question is this road that stubs out right into their place, is there
-- is there any other way you could stub that out?
Cronin: Well, in our conceptual plan that we first brought in we had it snugging up to the
Ten Mile Creek and for a better community feel as an amenity to be on the back pond,
we thought it would be -- or the back of the Ten Mile Creek, we moved that stub street
down and there might be a little bit of tweaking you could do, but, basically, wrapping
around that existing home that sits where it is, we are trying to somewhat tie to where it
is and I think it adds value to the subdivision being back up onto Ten Mile. If that
answers your question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 128 of 136
Rohm: Well, it answers mine, but it probably doesn't answer theirs. You know, the
point of the fact is as people exit, lights will shine directly towards their -- their
residence.
Cronin: I mean we are kind of stuck in between two tough things with the creek being
where it is and the existing home and ACHD's minimum road standard with turns and
your radius. It's kind of tucked in there where it could be possible to allow lots on Ten
Mile as an amenity, so --
Moe: I believe you made a statement earlier that you, actually, had the road
configuration tighter up to Ten Mile?
Cronin: Yeah. We, actually, had it along Ten Mile and at that point we also had the
home taking direct lot access off of Mesa and it was made a point that we'd like to
restrict the number of -- that took that, so we wanted to keep the community feel and
tighten that to the existing home that was there providing a nice lot between the Ten
Mile drainage -- or creek, as well as -- and the proposed roadway.
Moe: What's the intent of your common lot, Lot 1 ?
Cronin: Could I have the front page of that preliminary plat, Caleb. Which -- this one
here?
Moe: Yes.
Cronin: Basically to just provide somewhat of an entrance and we have got this nice
buffer coming all along Victory and into Mesa. Just an added landscape with some
vegetation to kind of spruce things up and rather than just make this guy's lot extremely
large, kind of buffers him so he's not -- doesn't have roadways all around that lot itself.
So, kind of shifted into the existing driveway to allow for more of a landscape area. And
also the intent of just sharply turning it here as it is was to provide larger lots along
Mesa Way and in here you're reducing those. The size of those lots were requested to
be larger to help that transition.
Rohm: It just seems to me that possibly you could make minor adjustments to that road
where it wouldn't dump straight in like that, but I'm not an engineer, so I can't --
Cronin: Yeah. I believe you could bring it up a little bit. It's going to reduce the size of
this lot, but you might be able to move it up in excess of 20 to 50 feet. And I'm not sure
Matt gave you the dimensions of that. Did you measure it out and see how it looks?
Rohm: And the point of the fact is that they could move it 20 feet, that would make a
significant difference or not? That's insignificant? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 129 of 136
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the other thing I was noticing, it looks like there is about 18 lots in
there and six or eight may go on Mesa,
but the others its going to be faster access,
probably, to go on down to Victory. You're talking one road to enter, rather than two.
And I mean it's probably going to be the shortest way to go, so most of them are
probably going to be going onto Victory anyway, I think. I mean that depends on which
direction they are going, but if they are heading into Boise, that's the direction they are
going to go and probably down to Eagle and the freeway. You know, I don't think we
can assume that all the traffic is going to go that direction.
Rohm: Well -- and it's -- all the traffic is not going to be at night either. You know, it's --
thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out real quickly, too, the other thing that the
neighbors brought up, ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct South Mesa Way or
reconstruct Mesa Way, as it turns out, to half of a 36 -foot wide street section. So,
everything that they abut on Mesa they are going to have to widen and improve with
curb, gutter, and sidewalk. So, including the bridge crossing. So, that will be widened,
again, at least where it crosses their property, that's a condition from ACRD, so I just
wanted to point that out.
Rohm: Wow. Any other questions? Anybody else like to speak to this applicant?
Moe: I guess I just have maybe another question for one of the folks that has already
testified in regard to the front -- your front yard, your circle driveway
You have no -- no space in front of your access to where additional trees or something
to screen anything that would work?
M. Binford: It's kind of a horseshoe. We have a circle that kind of -- it's kind of a
horseshoe. We have this kind of drive. So, if you pictured this right now as our circle
drive -- well, actually, it's about right here. Type thing. So, even if they move here, our
house sits right here. So, this is right into our house. Actually, by moving it this way
there is a little room for a berm, but we are still going to get headlights in the front of that
house. I don't know how, you know, you berm across a driveway. I mean 20 feet is stil I
-- still not going to make a difference.
Moe: As far as from the street to your -- to the house, what's the distance there?
M. Binford: Probably 30 feet, 35 feet or so.
Moe: Do you have trees in the front there now?
M. Binford: A few, but it's low stuff. Actually, I went ahead and started building some
berm in anticipation of this getting passed, but the fact of the matter is I can't berm
across my driveway and that's -- that's a big concern.
Moe: And the headlights are going into the house where?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 130 of 136
M. Binford: Into the living room.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Is the living room where you usually spend your time in the evening?
M. Binford: It is.
Moe: And there is no -- I don't want to belabor this thing, but this bothers me. There is
no trees, no anything to screen that would work?
M. Binford: I don't see that -- how you could screen across -- we are landscapers, by
the way, and so I -- we thought of different ways to try to screen that. I don't know how
you screen across a driveway. And, in fact, there is -- there is a borrow pit there that
doesn't allow you to build much of a berm to the house, because of the slope that you
would incur coming down into the borrow pit and keeping that borrow pit. So, not much
we can do. We have tried to berm up some in anticipation, but it's still not going to be
high enough to block headlights.
Moe: Thank you.
M. Binford: Thanks.
Binford: Just to kind of get an idea on how -- why landscaping will not keep the
headlights out, if you imagine this as being our driveway and our living room sits here,
we have bermed up quite a little bit of dirt right here, but the fact is is that when the
headlights pull in they are shooting this direction, so this does absolutely nothing,
because they are going to come into our living room and back out.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: But, Mr. Moe, your comment was -- is to do the berming in between the two
driveways; right?
Moe: That's true.
Rohm: Did you want to speak, sir?
McGhee: Aaron McGhee, 2747 South Barhara Way, Eagle, managing member of ATM
Development. If it was really, truly, a huge issue as far as the driveway, they are on a
five acre lot. It is possible to take out part of their asphalt driveway, extend it out a little
bit, and berm up in that area where it might be going into their windows. I don't know
how big their windows are. They are probably, you know, a four foot by six foot window,
and maybe a couple of them in their living room, so if that's something that we had to
do, you know, to please them, to satisfy this, to take out the existing park, maybe one
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 131 of 136
half or quarter of it, and extend it out and add some landscaping and -- that's something
we would be willing to do.
Rohm: Well, that's a nice gesture. Before we incorporate something like that in, I'd like
to at least have a response from the Binfords.
Binford: I guess I didn't really understand what your thoughts were or what your plans
were on moving our driveway, is that --
Rohm: Yes. That's what he has offered up is to -- if you widen the sweep of your
driveway, then, it could -- then added berm could be put in there to block the headlights.
Binford: Oh. Okay. I think I understand. That would be fine.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none -- come on
forward.
M. Binford: This road, though -- the only thing -- even if you berm, it still doesn't allow
that road to be connected to anything on the other side of the road in the future. It's still
tied to the front of the house in that case. So, any road going to the west off of Mesa
could not come in parallel to that or perpendicular.
Borup: It could -- go through their property and it could.
Rohm: I don't know that it's necessary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, you do need to let the applicant have the last word.
Borup: You're right.
Cronin: Caleb, could I have the one that shows the zoning. Personally, if I were to live
in
down sa u continue t get er to make it out on Mesa Way, I probably wouldn't drop
to I would come
n here. I'm just
providing an access onto Mesa Way, of a stub street to how somethin saying we are
g on the other
side of the road would develop. But -- and now I'm just going to be quiet and sit down.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Moe: While you're there, are you in agreement that you could work with the
homeowners across to redesign their front yard in order to get berming and keep the
lights out of their front living room?
Cronin: I believe the developer could work closely with the neighbors to come up with a
compromise that would help alleviate some of the nuisance that you might find with
headlights.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
April 6, 2006
Page 132 of 136
Rohm: I don't believe you're going to eliminate it, but can help in some way.
Cronin: Alleviate. Reduce.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. All right. I think that's enough.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-014
and PP 06-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: If we wanted to reference the offer that the applicant just made, would that
go in the development agreement? Okay. Then a question. The only place I see a
reference to the development agreement is in the analysis on page eight. It isn't actual
made a condition of approval.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission,
that's the only place you will ever see
the development agreement stuff is in the analysis section. They are not, technically,
conditions of approval. They are just the recommendation that the applicant agreed to
enter into this agreement with the city on annexation. So, anytime they make changes
to the development agreement, it's going to be in the analysis section. Any conditions
of approval are in your exhibits.
Zaremba: Pretty much everything else was agreed to, so I'll propose a motion.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, with the following
modification: On page nine, which is a continuation of the development agreement from
page eight, but on page nine I would add one more additional bullet and that bullet says
that the applicant has volunteered to assist the neighbor across the street from the first
entry road to this development by widening their driveway and providing some berm --
widening the U of their driveway and providing some berming in between the enlarged
area. Perhaps some landscaping.
Moe: At their expense.
Zaremba: At developer's expense.
Rohm: End of motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 133 of 136
Zaremba: End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012, to include all staff comments with the
aforementioned changes to the development agreement. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22: Public Hearing: CUP 06-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
2,580 square -foot restaurant with a drive-thru on .73 acres in a C -G zone
for Conglomerate Drive Through B by Afton -Pacific, LLC — southwest
corner of Eagle Road and Magic View Drive:
Moe: Oh, let's continue the next one.
Rohm: Okay. I cannot believe we are still here. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on CUP 06-007, begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is a doozey. I don't know -- I think we will just
ask the applicant if they have any problems with the staff report. They have submitted a
design review application and a Conditional Use Permit, because it is within 300 feet of
an existing and proposed drive-thru, which the UDC now requires CUs for those. The --
I guess there is one thing to be brought up. The police department did have some
concerns about some of the landscaping on the south side of the driveway and being
able to see from Magic View Drive the exchange of monies and food into the drive-thru
window. So, I will go on record just saying that they had a concern about not -- about
this being so heavily landscaped that they can't see from their cruisers that the drive-
thru is getting robbed or whatever. So, I -- that's -- that's it. Everything else meets
dimensional standards and staff will stand for any questions you have.
Rohm: Any question of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Davis: Andrew Davis, BRS Architects, 1010 South Allante in Boise. I have no issues
with the staff report. I have to admit this is the first time I have ever been asked to take
landscaping away from a project, but we would be more than happy to work with the
Police department to come up with a landscape plan that they are more agreeable to, if
that's what you wish, or if you wish to leave it the way it is, we are, obviously, okay with
that, since that's how we submitted the application. I'll leave that up to your discretion. I
don't really have any objections to either way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 134 of 136
Moe: Mr. Chairman? I would
looking for, basically, a revised
have a problem with that?
Davis: I do not.
Moe: Thank you very much.
1]
say based on the police department's report, they are
landscape plan that affords greater visibility. Do you
Rohm: Okay. Anybody else like to testify to this application?
Borup: I'm just curious if there is a lot of drive-thrus that get robbed.
Rohm: Well, I don't know.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question of the applicant.
Moe: Are you trying to get this to 3:00 or what?
Zaremba: No. What I'm looking at is Exhibit B and planning department requirements.
I know you have read this, but I just want to make sure you're aware of 1.11 and 1.12
that require you to remove the current pole sign and make separate application for
whatever sign that you have.
Davis: Yes. Actually, 1.11 1 think is self-explanatory. That's fine. 1.12, the intent is to
move the sign, reuse the structure, and put a new sign that is in conformance with the
code back up that will be at the proper height and dimensional standards on the existing
structure of the sign. But to remove all of the existing reader board signage and all that
and redo that in conformance with the current code.
Zaremba: I think that would work. Does that work for staff?
Hood: I don't really want to get into it too much, but Jacksons was -- this is a
nonconforming sign. They were sent notice of that. It's been sent on, I believe, to the
prosecutor's office. This is a condition straight from the short plat, which this is Lot 1 of
four on the short plat and it's consistent with the short plat requirements, basically, a cut
and paste job. It's on the code enforcement and legal and so that's kind of where the
planning department is concerned. This condition is consistent with what we have been
saying all along and there is some other stuff going on with I think John Jackson and the
new property owner about possibly being able to save some of the existing structure or
not. I don't know how that's coming out, to tell you the truth.
Zaremba: But whatever the end result needs to be in compliance with the current UDC
sign portions?
Hood: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning 4
April 6, 2006 is
Page 135 of 136
Davis: Yeah. Intend to put up a -- I believe it's a 45 foot tall sign, rather than the 65
that's there and use the dimensional standards of the sign that's -- and that will be,
obviously, under a separate submittal.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Davis: Thank you.
Moe: Anybody else to testify?
Rohm: I don't believe there is anybody else to testify.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-007.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-007. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 06-007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
t
April 6, 2006, and site plan labeled SD -1, dated February 15th, 2006. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-007 to include all staff
comments for the hearing date of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:53 A.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2006
Page 136 of 136
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
_ y
CG
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED:
0
04IPLO
DATE APP LVED
a•t
p/ •
O�
t.. •.
9A' '
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT
ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of March 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
alfr V-11,/
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian.
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 6, 2006 CUP 06-002
APPLICANT Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC3-B
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Conditional Use Permit
for an Equipment Rental, Sales & Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C -G zone for Sunbelt
Equipment Rental - 483 East Franklin Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See attached Findings
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:
Emailed:
wau iniTiais:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
2 5 2006
WE R I ® IM,,,'
,,,
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
0
In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Sunbelt Equipment Rental, Sales
and Service Business on 2.49 Acres in the C -G Zone, by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC.
Case No(s). CUP -06-002
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 16, 2006
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 16 2006
incorporated by reference) ,
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March
16, 2006 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of March 16, 2006 incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -06-002 - PAGE 1 of 4
• 0
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the
Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the
attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006 Of
al reference.
The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such
requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian Cit
oregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
Code § 11 -SA and based upon the above and f
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated
February 20, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and,
2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006 incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of p
structures on or in the groundermanent footings or
. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the
final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with
multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the
event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple
phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year
from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the
one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and
void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -06-002 - PAGE 2 of 4
0
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. plat
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the Ci of
Meridian, pursuant to
an interest in Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a Person who has
real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twee
this decision and order seek a judicial review as Provided byChapter y52,ft Title 6er the7 ate of
Idaho
o
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -06-002 - PAGE 3 of 4
By action of the Planning &
day of Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the b
/ , 2006.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
(Chair) VOTED _ -7--
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE
VOTED__���w
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED ��J
COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP
VOTED-6�
_
COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA
VOTED
P
CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM
Attest:
®r
si
a
e
`LID,,"LL.5'^':..iii -
Tara Green, Deputy it Cie c .
Copy served upon Applicant, The planning Department, Public Works Department and city
y
By
4ityaclerk&W Dated: 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -06-002 - PAGE 4 of 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN pLANNDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT F •
OR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
v <�
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: 3/16/2006
TO: Planning& Zoning ng Commission'
FROM: C. Caleb Hood
Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT:
208-884-5533
Sunbelt Equipment Rental
• CUP -06-002
Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and Servis
on 2.49 Acres in the C -G District, by Franklin/Stratford Investments, ce BusinesLLC.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S RE
The applicant, Franldin/StratfOrd Investments, LLC, is requesting Conditional Use Permit CUP
approval to operates equipment rental, sales and service business out of a proposed 11,900 square -foot
building. The proposed equipment rental business is located on 2.49 acres within Honor Park S
# 3. Concurrent to the CUP application, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance forqubdivision
landscaping standards: the landscaping and curbing requirements adjacent to the vehicle use/aswo
and internal landscaping around the proposed parking stalls on the west side of the site. The site is 1
on the south side of Franklin Road approximately phalt areas,
currently zoned C -G (General Retail and Sce Commercialeet ) t of Stratford Drive. The roe located
property rtj' is
NOTE: Originally, the applicant proposed to construct the subject business on two lots west of the
site. Staff did not believe that that location was a good place for this business and recommended denial.
Since that recommendation, staff has met with the applicant and their architect. After meetin the cent
applicant has submitted revised drawings and site plan information that relocate the business
g,
many of staff's original concerns. City Staff has sent additional hearing notices t property and address
are now within 300 -feet of the current site (See Section 4 below for publish dates) P P3' owners that
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (CUP and Alternative Compliance) were submitted to the PlanningDepartment
for concurrent review. Staff is generally supportive of the revised site plan as it addresses two of
concerns with the first proposal: it prohibits large truck trailer traffic from entering and in
Franklin Road driveways, and itom
ountthe main
Franklin Road, There are still some changes to the submittOf d site frontage lanthisthatustrial type business hang s on
overall staff is supportive of the revised proposal. Staff has provided a detailed anstaff is recommending, but
applications below. Based on the anDronnged al sis contained in this rPnnrt+,+ analysis of the requested
underlined
3, PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimonyI move to deny File Number , CUP -06-
002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006, for the followin
reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to r g
P epare an
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIRG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 0
FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on
April 6, 2006.
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP -
06 -002, as presented in staff report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006 with the following
modifications: (add any proposed modifications.) Ifurther move to direct staff to prepare an
appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on
April 6, 2006.
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony,
CUP -06-002 to the hearing date I move to continue File Number
of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
483 East Franklin Road; Section 18, T3N RIE
b. Owner/Applicant:
Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC
8585 E. Hartford Drive, Ste. 500
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
c. Representative: Dawna Jenkins, Larson Architects
d. Present Zoning: C -G
e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial
f. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct and operate a heavy -equipment rent
Proposed building is approximately al, sales and service business. The
11,900 square -feet that includes: warehouse/storage space,
a wash bay, several overhead doors, maintenance areas, offices, a conference room, and a
show room. Proposed on this site are a large outdoor storage area, fueling stations, and multi-
level docks. The applicant is proposing to fence off the outdoor storage area with a
combination of on 8 -foot tall block walls and slatted 8 -foot tall chain-link fencing. The
applicant is proposing to provide 24 parking spaces for this use. The applicant is requesting
alternative compliance for the standard requirements to construct landscape planters w'
some of the parking areas and to not provide landscaping adjacent to all vehicle use areas.
I . Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): February 20, 2006
2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): February 20, 2006
3. Date of Building Elevations and Floor Plan (attached in Exhibit A): Jan 3 2
g. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The project consists of a 9,600 s.f. single story 006
building with a block facade. The maximum height of the building would be 24' - metal
be an equipment sales/rental facility with office/warehouse within the building itself This will
equipment storage on the lots. The Owner is planning to provide an 8' high CMU block screen
all along the north and west property lines to screen the equipment yard and is seeking
alternative compliance to use an 8' high chain-link type fence with approved fabric for
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIO, DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
screening along the south and west property lines or additional plantings in the park area
(please see applicant's submittal letter.)
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before
the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 30`h and February 13�', 2006 and February
270', 2006 and March 13 , 2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Jan
2006 (On Feb City uaty 200i, 2006 and February 22,
ruarY 22°d, 2006 Ci Staff sent additio°d
nal hearing notice mailings to the
Property owners that are now within 300 -feet of the revised site location.)
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 60 2006 and March 70', 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This site is part of the Honor Park
Development. There are existing and proposed office, retail and flex uses within Honor Park.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Vacant and Commercial, zoned C -G
2. East: Vacant, future commercial building, zoned C -G (Honor park Sub)
3. South: Flex building, zoned C -G (Honor Park Sub)
4. West: City Park, zoned C -G; Future commercial building(s), zoned C -G (Honor Park
Sub)
d. History of previous Actions: Honor Park Subdivision #3, which included 17 commercial
lots, was recorded in 1999. No specific development pl
this site. ans have been previously approved for
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
Issues or concerns:
2. Vegetation: N/A
3. Flood plain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation:
5. Hazards: N/A
6. Existing Zoning: C -G
7. Size of Property: 2.49 acres
I Conditional Use Information:
Services already run to this lot.
Services already run to this lot.
None.
N/A
1. Non-residential square footage: 11,900 square foot building
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN pLANNDEPARTMENT STAFF REPO •
RT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
2. Proposed building height: 24 feet
3. Number of Residential units: 0
g. Off -Street Parking:
1. Parking spaces required: 24
2. Parking spaces proposed: 24
3. Compact spaces proposed: 0
4. Off-site parking proposed: 0
h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common d
this site will be from Franklin Road for retail traffic and from Scenery Lane rive, etc.): Access for the fleet of to
flat
bed trucks. The truck access to Scenery Lane is proposed to be gated. The access
Road will be from shared driveways at the east property line and off-site to h West. Franldin
condition of a vei
roval staff is recommendin that all lar a fleet vehicles be rohibiAs a
usin the 11 oftha s to access Franklin Road. There is an existing cross access agreement
ted from
between all of the lots in Honor Park Subdivision #3 that have frontage on Frankin Road. 7. COMMENTS MEETING ad.
On January 27, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies
present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department Meridian Pdepartments
Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has
and recommended actions of all other departments and agencies ep�ment,
in the attached Exhibit included all comments
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter
VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full rana of co
and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Staff fords the following Comthe g commercial
applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff anal ehensive Plan policies to be
y is m italics):
• Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) public services.
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to
provide municipal services to the l
following manner: ands in the
• Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at t
developer's expense, he
• The lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire De
who currently shares resource and
personnel with the Meridian Rural
Department. l Fitre
• The lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department PD
• The roadways adjacent
to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District ACRD .
• ( ) This service will not change.
The subject lands
are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District.
service will not change and the M
eridian
t '
Library Distri ct should suffer o
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
Municipal, fee-suppof ted, services will be Provided to this site by the Meridian Building
ment, the Meridian Public Works Department,
Departthe Meridian Water Department, the
Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utili
Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. t
• "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal
IV, Objective D, Action 2)
The access points to this site have been previously determined with the Honor Park
pplicant is proposing to
Subdivision #3 plat approval. The ause the access points to the
arterial street that were previously approved for this development.
"Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal
III, Objective D, Action 5)
The applicant is specifically asking for alternative compliance of the requirement to install
landscaping on this site. In lieu of installing a S foot wide landscape strip around all of the
vehicle use areas as required by UDC 11 -3B -8C1, the applicant is proposing to construct
fencing adjacent to the south half of the storage yard. Fencing is proposed is proposed on the
south half a the site, where the equipment is primarily stored. Also, the applicant is
requesting a waiver of the requirement to construct internal planters adjacent to the parking
within the storage yard as required by UDC 11-3B-8C2c. The applicant is not proposing an
alternative to the standard requirement to cons
asking fotruct the internal planters, they are simply
r a waiver of the requirement. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for
more information on landscaping this site.
"Require industrial development
pollution standards, and local la
conform to Federal and State air, water, and noise
andscaping, traffic, noise, and environmental stan "
(Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective A, Action 5) dards.
If approved, this use will need to conform to all applicable Federal and State requirements.
See bullet above, Section 10, and the Findings in Exhibit C below for information regarding
landscaping, traffic, and anticipated noise generation on this site.
"Require industrial uses to conform to disposal, spill and storage measures as outlined by the
EPA." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective A, Action 3)
If approved, this use will need to conform to all applicable EPA standards.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,ir
vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4)
Please see bullet above and Section 10 below for information regarding landscaping
site.
on this
• `Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to
VII, Goal N, Objective A, Action 2)
existing industrial uses." (Chapter
Although this is not a "heavy" industrial use, the proposed use is more industrial in nature
than retail -commercial. There are flex building currently under construction in Honor Park
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNO DEPARTMENT STAFF REP 0
ORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
Subdivision. Most of these adjacent flex buildings have a substantial amount of theirfloor
area dedicated to warehousing, which is an industrial type use as well.
"Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (chapter
VII, Goal 1, Objective B) p
Staff believes that the proposed uses do contribute to the variety of uses in this area.
Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that m be
the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request's appropriate for this Property.
a1' provided at
P P ty.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory,
and conditional uses in the C -G zoning district.
are allowed with Equipment rental, sales and service businesses
conditional use permit approval in the C -G zone.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the
retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures
accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location
of the district in proximity to streets and highways.
c. General Standards: The applicant i
standard landscaping requirements. s requesting alternative compliance to some of the
Analysis of the proposed landscaping is provided in
Section 10 below.
10. CUP ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
Conditional Uses: In approving any conditional use, the decision -
appropriate conditions, bonds and safeconformity
_ making body may prescribe
impact of the use on other property, control the formittsequence with
tlti�tl that:
duration of the use, assure that the use and the prop in �, minimize adverse
g f the use, control the
properly, designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property located
devpis maintained
the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, required than those generallyrequired in q more restrictive standards
q this Title, and require mitigation of adverse impacts of the
Proposed development
districts, that provides seupon service deliveryUpon
within the Ci by any political subdivision, including school
Due to thA .,.,4..__ _,•..
City (UDC 11 -SB -6D).
LandsLands—�m� The landscape plan, pr aced b
February 20, 2006, should be approved with the foll wing hany The Land gesoup' Inc, labeled L1.0, dated
Street Buffer: A 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is required. along Franklin Road, an art
roadway. The applicant is proposing to construct a buffer along Franklin Road that complies with
the UDC, arterial
Gravel The p
gravel area shown on the landscape plan does not match the site plan and is not
approved.
Perimeter and Internal Landsca in : As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Section 8 above, the applicant is requesting alternative �¢
landscaping standards. Per UDC 11 -3B -8C1 i a 5 -foot wide alternative
landscape s an Policies and
compliance for specific
strip is required adjacent to
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR
THE HEG DATE OF MARCH 16
2006
all vehicle use areas. Per UDC 11-3B-8C2c,
guide major traffic movement interior landscaping shall be use to delineate and
purpose of the internal within the parking area so as to prevent cross -space driving. The
and perimeter landscaping requirements, is to soften and mitigate the
visual affect of a large expanse of asphalt, reduce summer heat gain, delineate and guide traffic
movement, and to prevent storm water and parked cars from spilling onto adjacent properties.
The applicant claims that due to space limitations and the nature of the equipment company use
compliance with the above-mentioned standards is not possible (please see applicant's submittal
letter.) The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 -foot wide landscape strip on both sides of the
vehicle use areas that are near the building (approximately 180 lineal feet). Rather than
constructing a 5 -foot wide landscape strip adjacent to all vehicle use areas, as required by UDC
, the applicant
thehe site.
Alis proposing to construct an 8 -foot tall fence on the southern portion of
. ong portions of the south, east and west property lines, the applicant isro
install slats within a chain link fence. Along the north and portions of the sout east posing t and west
t
Property line, the applicant is proposing to construct an 8 -foot tall block wall. As halt for
storage yard/parking area on the south side of the site is proposed up to the fence 1p the
curbing. The applicant would like to have maximum flexibility to move and store e, With no
within the storage yard area, and does not want to construct curbing and landscape ginpment
would decrease the ability to adapt to future needs within the yard. planters that
The purpose of the alternative compliance section of the UDC is to provide for alternati
in which to meet the intended purposes of certain development regulations when ve means
compliance is not feasible or the alternative means i�
n explicits superior to what is required. Further, UDC
11-SB-SB2 requires that at least one limiting condition, such as topography, space limitations,
unusually shaped lot, safety, etc. exist on the site. Staff finds that there is no condition th an
on this site in which full compliance with the landscape ordinance would not be a exists
Although the fencing will semi -screen from view the visual affect of the large expanse of asphalt
feasible.
on the south side of the site and prevent cars/equipment from spilling onto adjacent p t
fencing is not superior to what is generally required, it will not limit heat gain, or meet the intent
J properties,
of UDC 11-3B-8. Also, the applicant is not proposing any provision to protect the ar
that are proposed within the storage yard area. Staff understands that the user would p king stalls
maximum flexibility to move the parking areas from time to time. However, staff has coo have
with allowing the required parking to shift from one part of the yard to another, without b concerns
reviewed for compliance with the dimensional standards established in the UDC. For t Bing
reasons, staff recommends denial of the annHcano. r__ _,1 hese
re uirement to construct landscay a lanters on th end of t arkinurow de of the site and ofthe
Site Plan Floor Plan and Elevations
elevations submitted After initial review of the siteplan,floor with the CUP application, as well as visiting the existing Sunbelt Equment
Rental business at 1953 E. Commercial Street, staff felt that that the proposed use did p
not belong
on Franklin Road. After sitting down with the applicant again and reviewing the business on the
new site, staff believes that the use can
It in with the existing uses. Although Sunbelt does
currently tend to rent equipment to larger contractors and not the general public, staff has been
told that Sunbelt is modifying their operating philosophy and wants to expand into he
public (retail) sector. general
This site is between a city park, an arterial roadway, retail commercial businesses
businesses, and offices. As part of the daily operations, accessory to the rental business,flex
applicant is proposing to construct fueling stations to dispense fuel for their equipment The
fumes and odors which will be emitted from the fueling stations may be disturbing
neighborhood. Another accessory use to the business is the repair and maintenance of he
equipment. Using compressors, sharpening of metal, welding, etc. would be occurring on this
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEVIG DATE OF MARCH 16 20
06
site, if allowed.
Staff still has some concerns with some of the accessory uses on this site such as fueling pads out
in the storage areas, and a two-level dock. These types of uses are usually associated with
industrial, not commercial uses. Therefore staff recommends that the Commission determine if
:Jelin ads docks or an other use on this site is nota ro riate for this area.
The exterior of the proposed building is primarily composed of metal siding, brick and stucco.
The east and west elevations are dominated by overhead doors, and the south elevation has no
windows, doors, or other openings (other than an air intake louver.) Staff ori
ly had concerns
with this building as all four sides of the building would have been visible from public areas.
Although the south elevation will be visible from the city park, staff believes that it will be
substantially screened from view by fencing.
Miscellaneous:
Traffic: As mentioned above, Sunbelt uses large trucks to transport the industrial -grade
equipment it rents out. Staff does not believe that it is a good idea to allow the fleet of flat-bed
trucks to continuously turn into and out of this site using driveways on Franklin Road. Therefore,
staff recorrunends that all fleet trucks used in rhP rra„,,_�
encieQ The applicant is proposing to install slats within a chain-link fence along the south, east
and west property lines. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 -foot tall block
wall reales
north and portions south, . aff
yard east and west boundaries of the outdoor storage areaStiag the
security of the storage rd is important. However, staff believes that chain-link fencing with slats
does not provide a good screen for outdoor storage areas. Specifically, staff does not believe that
chain link fence with slats are appropriate for screening of a storage yard next to a cityark.
Therefore, staff recommends that an 8 -foot wall constructed along the entire
boundary of the site. tall block ll bw P e
m
Screenin: The existing Sunbelt business off of Commercial Avenue has booms that
several tens of feet into the air. Because this site is in a hi extend
all a ui ment be full screened from view, visible area staff recommends that
Grave— 1 Area: The applicant is showing a 30' by roughly 125'
gravel
this parcel. It is staff's understanding that the heavier equipmentand trucks will betstore side iof
s
area to avoid sinking into the asphalt on warm summer days. The UDC requires all vehic a d in use
areas to be improved with an impervious surface. Staff recommends that the Commission allow
the applicant to construct approximately 4,500 square feet of gravel storage area
area is annually treated with some type of dust -abatement material. g Provided this
Gates: The applicant is proposing to gate all of the entrances into the storage area. Staff is
supportive of this request, as Scenery Lane is a dead-end cul-de-sac and there is adequate
stacking for vehicles that use the northern entrances to the storage yard.
Certificate of Zonin Com fiance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)
Permit is to ensure that all construction,
complies with all of the provisions of the Ualterations and/or the establishment of a new use
DC before any work on the structure is started and/or
the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in
Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC e
occupancy from the Planning Department. p rout and
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HANG DATE OF MARCH 16
2006
b. Staff Recommendation:
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Date of CUP Site Plan: February 20, 2006
2. Date of Landscape Plan: February 20, 2006
3. Date of Building Elevations and Floor Plan: January 3, 2006
B. Agency/DePartment Comments and Conditions
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Ada County Highway District (ACRD)
6. Meridian Parks Department
7. Sanitary Services Company
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Sunbelt Equipment Rental CUP -06-002
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAIDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan (dated: February 20, 2006)
Exhibit A Page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
2. Landscape Plan (Dated February 20, 2006)
CWPP *LWIP11- -
M'UGH
leery 1
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN0
DEPARIMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
3. Building Elevations and Floor Plan (dated: January 3, 2006)
5-
3 SSE
IVNUV4
- - --------- 3 L
og r
Urn"
11 F
14,
T
I El
1 1 [231
Exhibit A Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARG DATE OF MARCH 16 200
Exhibit A Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN pEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR
THE HEARG DATE OF MARCH 16 200
6
B. Agency/Department Comments and Conditions
1• PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The Site Plan labeled as SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects dated Feb
approved, with the conditions listed herein. Iuary 20, 2006 is
1.2 Per UDC 11 -3B -8C1, construct a 5 -foot wide landscape strip adjacent to all small
areas. Per UDC 11-3B-8C2c, interior landscaping shall vehicle use
be use to delineate and e
movement within the parking area so as to prevent cross -space driving;guide major traffic
islands on both ends of the parking aisle shown in the northwest portio f this ie (the appldscape icant
oant
1.3
shall not be required to construct a planter to break-up the 19 stalls in a row).
All Sunbelt fleet trucks used in the transport of equipment shall be required to use Scene L
and not Franklin Road for ingress/egress to this ro �' ane,
within the storage yard area only, not on Scenery Lane o anywhere elsee et trucks shall be parked
1.4 Construct an 8 -foot tall block wall along the entire north and west sides of thero e
rty. Construct
fencing along the south and east side of the site as proposed, a combination of hair -link with
slats and block wall.
1.5 All equipment, including but not limited to booms and all other storage equipment, shall be full
screened from view, and shall not exceed 1I10 -feet in height. y
1.6 Maintenance of the rental equipment and of the fleet vehicles shall be done within thero ose
building. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to any welding, engine work, changin of
fluids, using air compressors, sharpening of metal, welding, etc. g
1.7 The applicant may construct app ro
the heavier a ui ximrea i 4,500 square feet of gravel storage area for parking
q pment, provided this area s ann
material. ually treated with some type of dust -abatement
1.8 The landscape plan prepared by The Land GroupInc. on
approved with the following modifications/notes: , Feb maty 20, 2006, labeled L1.0 is
• Remove the gravel area shown on the southeast side of thelanit is not approved.
• Provide a landscape buffer along Franklin Road that at least 25 -feet wide,
exclusive of right-of-way (UDC 11 -3B -7C 1).
• Provide 5 -foot wide landscape strips adjacent to all vehicle use areas
8Cla). (UDC 11-3B-
• Provide landscape planters on the ends of the parking rows
• A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect,
designer, or qualified nurseresponsible
prior to occupancy of the building,All sandrds of nselahoneshall apply aand s listed
in UDC 11-3B-14.
acce_Ata n ParK site to the west arf
Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
1.9 The building elevationsr
p epared by Larson Architects, dated 1-3-06 are approved.
1.10 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-06-002are complied with, the a lican
shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning p Com liance pp t
from the Planning Department prior to operation. (CZC ) pmt, and occupancy,
Exhibit B Page I
CITY OF MERIDIANpLgNNIDEPARTMENT STAFF REPO 9
RT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
1.11 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of occupancy
Proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained b
y providing
surety to the Ci for the
City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110%
required improvements (including paves strip in
accompany any request for temporary g' of the cost of the
ary
p occupancy, g' landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must
1.12 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business sins
permit in compliance with the sign ordinance, grequire a separate sign
1.13 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18
with the conditions months to commence the use as
of approval listed above. If the business has not u Permitted in accord
approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation within 18 months of
2• PUBLIC WOE DEPARTMENT
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being
Fr in
Road. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service applicant shaion of mains ll coordinate
main size and routing with the Public Works Department,ate
easements for any mains that are required to provideerviceand execute standard forms of
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materia
Minimum cover over sewer mains
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian public Works Departments Standard is
Specifications,
2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in E. Franklin Road. The
applicant shall be responsible to install all water mains necessary to serve this development
coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
2.3 The applicant may be required to loop the water system to achieve any necessary fire fl
requirements. arY ow
2.4 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or en
ineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street park g ar� e Storm hal
be submitted to the City Engter
treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department
Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management practices Environmental
r Idaho Cities
and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is
Prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written
authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filingall
necessary applications with the Idahoan
Injection Wells. Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow
2.5 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside
right of way (include all water services and hydrants), The easements shall be dedicated as a blic
separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement
(supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement
(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11"Map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT
for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land dEy DO
B)
NOT RECORD,Surveyor.
2.6 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths,
Pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy,
2.7 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development lan re "
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, p vi an and construction
Per Resolution 02-374. p ,prior to si ature on the final plat
2.8 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
Exhibit B Page 2
OCITY OF MERIDIAN pLANNDEPARTMENT STAFF •
REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Permitting that
2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 P
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. ermitting
2.11 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. all building
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 Acceptance of the water
quality by the Meridian supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department
Water Department for bacteria testing. and water
3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a• Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or park g lot aisle.
b• The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
e• Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g• Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
h• Show all proposedor existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. existing
3.3 All entrance and internal roads and driveways shall have a turning radius of 28' inside an
radius. d 48' outside
3.4 Provide a 20 -foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be
accordance with Appendix D Section D10 int Signs, marked in
3.5 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or
Permanent
surface are required before combustible coonnstruchonee brought d access roads with an all weather
3.6 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the
Code to service the proposed Project' Fire h laced Appendix p J y p p hydrants shall be Per A International Fire
x D.
3.7 This use will have an unknown transient population and will have an
Fire Department cunkn
all volumes. The Meridian Fire D Own impact on Meridian
in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Cons
Department has experienced 2612 responses
Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 b the year
2010. y year
3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
3.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy.
3.10 All aspects of the building systems
shall be required to (including exiting systems), processes & sto
comply with the International Fire Code. rage Practices
3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
Exhibit B Page 3
40 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIDEPARTMENT STAFF RE PORT FOR THE 0
HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
3.12 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, the
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped
as
throughout with an approved automatics g
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183) accordance with Section
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be
m)' 600 feet (183
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic
accordance with Section 903sprinkler system installed in
.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
3.13 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access
gate on all
gates. The gates shall be equipped with a Knox box Padlock which has to be ordered thru the
Meridian Fire Department.
3.14 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting
shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code..ems), processes & storage practices
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 Th,- p,.r,.,.- -
5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
5.1 It has been determined that the Right -of --Way and Development Services Department does not
have any site specific requirements for you at
in. this time due to the fact that all improvements are
6. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 ThP n,,.v-
vanances should be anted.
7. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY
7.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your
stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance Proposal applicationp and submit
Exhibit B Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIDEPARTMENT STAFF
REPORT FOR THE HIG DATE OF
MARCH 16, 2006
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its on
determination on the Conditional Use Permit request u
the following: p
L That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located the
This site is 2.49acres in size. Commission finds that the subject property
accommodate the required yards (setbacks p pY is large enough to
the ordinance However, the applicant is proposin o� mod � he stan�dlands feang
tures required by
requirements adjacent to the vehicle use areas and adjacent to parking areas for this business.
Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in
commercial districts (UDC 11 -site. Per this requirement, 24 stalls are required. There are 24
Parking stalls proposed on this site.
The Commission finds that this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan a
in accord with the requirements of this Title, rid
The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Desi
tion
Commercial. The property has an existing commercial zoning design tion this
G) which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The proposed use however,p p is
commercial and industrial components. Commission finds that the ro osed use could be
has both
harmonious with the Com rehensive Plan and the Unif ed Develo ment Code ifAl of the
conditions of a roval in Exhibit B of the StaffR ort are coin lied with
10, of the Staff Report for more information.) (see Sections h 9 and
I That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with of
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
The Commission finds that the design, operation and maintenance of an equipment rental sales
and service business should be generally compatible with the other existing and anticipated uses
in this area. Co ,
mmission finds that if this use is approved on this site, it should not adversely
change the essential character of the area (see Sections 8 and 10 of the Staff Report for more
information.)
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, will
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the Conditions in Exhibit B t
Proposed business should not adversely affect any other properties in the area. The Meridian
Parks Department has provided comments stating that they would like to see the full -required
landscape buffer provided against the park site, they do not support the alternative compliance ed
request. Additionally, staff has talked with one of the representatives of the Capital Educators
Credit Union. This person
p primarily had concerns over parked trucks on Scenery Lane, proposed
screening of the site, and the ability of Scenery Lane to handle large trucks. The Commission has
incorporated conditions to address these provisions into Exhibit B of the Staff R ort.
Commission should rely upon anep The
will adversely affect the other property in theeviin 01y provided to determine if the development
Exhibit C Page l
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNOGI DEPARTMENT STAFF 0
REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public fac' '
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drain nd
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
age
The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and '
currently available to the subject property. Please refer to an co
Meridian Fire D irrigation are
artment, Police Department, Parks D y comments prepared by the
and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, on finary Services oiporation
Proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed that the
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. and
If approved, the applicant will be financing an
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional equirementsents eat public cd for ost.
pment.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials equipment
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to an
y persons, welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes' q Pment and
Property or the general
This is the hardest finding to make. This site is between a city, glare or odors.
commercial businesses, flex businesses, and offices. As park' an arterial roadway, retail
transports large construction equipment on large flat-bed semi trucks. This will have a si
Part of the daily operations, Sunbelt
impact on noise and traffic in this area. For this reason, the Commission is r uiha t
truck traffic use Scenery Lane and not Franklin Road for access. Further, accessorygnificant
business, the applicant is proposing to construct fueling stations to dispense ghat the large
equipment. The flumes and odors which will be emitted from the o dissta • to the rental
disturbing to the neighborhood. Another accessory use to the he pence fuel for their
maintenance of the equipment. Compressors s fueling tions maybe
mess is the repair and
on this site. To mitigate these uses, the Cog of metal, welding, etc. will be occurring
operations occur within the proposed buildimng and not oussion is s ide g that all repair and ten
ance
The Comnn;Sion recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval oft '
this location; however, Commission does not believe that the amount generated will b
detrimental to the his use in
general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will
create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Com
ssion
will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welmfare of h finds as if all of the t the ed uses
Conditions in Exhibit B are complied with.
S. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or dame a of
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. g a natural,
The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or
any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. damage of
Exhibit C Page 2
e
}�n
AZ 06-003
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Hightower, LLC
ITEM NO. Q
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from
March 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoni
24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 ng of
(12.31 acre ,
Hightower Subdivision
- southwest cornerof Chinden Boulevaard and Jericho Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
�k ;
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:
kc
"
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
r.,
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented of
public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
41
80 tiA
a
i
�)y.,y
z 4
FtA
.a t
�s
w:p
rr"�
Y
r
Y �
k>k°� S Y r eY ��,�dTY4C >A'�"
f
*m
A i
F
11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
•
PP 06-003
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Hightower, LLC
ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential
lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed
R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision - southwest comer of Chinden Rivri R R=i�_1
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
See Comments In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
.--..--..--v iwuta
}
e
e
Fk
CUP 06-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
g..
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Hightower, LLC
ITEM NO. Ej
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March
n
2, 2006 - Conditional Use Permit for a Mix
Development that includes ed Use Planned
single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial
a vehicular uses, private streets, a
neighborhood park and u
to Chinden Blvd. for Hightower Subdivision
#r
AGENCY
COMMENTS
"
CITY CLERK:
<.
CITY ENGINEER:
u
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
.
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
'
CITY WATER DEPT:
Y. a
CITY SEWER DEPT.
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY
DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See Comments In AZ Packet
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
a
Materials presented at
public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian.
<s
. '�i
Elm
',v`} °;. � ✓t1'z�E;.�d.L+`Fa"�ia .��i u5 <(� "; � x �-lois- 4 $ 'ri "
3
, €d,sa Y zit `^fir$
x
.,::
'v '` ^t ¢
s�
z
�.
� � S,„. r i tap s $"'�°' ��i� •p 1 �,?' �}`� t .'� �:� {rx '3K��i, ry., ,
�
,.
me E."Y: dY ✓ F '. �`
S�
t
f
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETINGAZ 06-005
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC
ITEM NO. 7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres
from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates
Subdivision -northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road
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: See letter from I
See attached Staff Comments
and Jack
Contacted:
and affidavit of
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings stall become properly of the Ctiy of Meridian.
C�
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
PP 06-004
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC
ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 126
residential lots (24 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26
common lots on 55.83 acres in proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision
AGENCY
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: See letter from
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
and Jack Petty in AZ Packet
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented of public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN PLANNING X ZONING MEETING
•
AZ 06-006
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC
ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of
10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision - southwest corner of
Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard
AGENCY
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: See affidavit of Po:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
e
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETINGPP 06-005
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC
REQUEST
ITEM NO. 10
Continued Public Hearing from March 2,
2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial building lots and 1 common lots on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for
Knighthill Center Subdivision - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard
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:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
i'
"v2«
$
y
'Ai'114 �t
{ z
t
t F
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETINGAZ 06-004
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres
from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45
acres) for The Tree Farm - north side of Chinden Blvd. on both sides of Black Cat Rd.; West of Spurwing Sub
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:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Revised Staff Report
OTHER: See attached letters from Derick O'Neill and Sherrie Ewing
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
"10
i,
� <j
� { S
s,
V
3,
d, <
<n
1 v
E
t i,'te i 4,
3�
P
,z
i,
� <j
O 0
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8ZO AZ 06-011
NTNG MEETING April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development
ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16,
29.69 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivi�s on - 5603 Nolrth Locon ust st Hing of
Road Grove
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:
See previous Item Packet / Minutes
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials Presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
}
e F^
Y 4 �
v,^4
x
v
.H
6 M
i
ti� tt
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETINGPP 06-009
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development
ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of
88 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision - 5603 North Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
yrak
sz
y b
4 '2 3y�SxSF �4
rx
}
..�.-t x�
}
q
14, R
k
? Y�
11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
•
AZ 06-012
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Kingsbridge Properties, LLC
ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of
9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision - 4240 East Bott Lane
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ctiy of Meridian.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETINGPP 06-010
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Kingsbridge Properties, LLC
ITEM NO. 15
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of
18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone
for Hendrickson Subdivision - 4240 East Bott Lane
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / 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:
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
WPI
O 0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETINGCUP 06-009
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Primeland Development, LLP
ITEM NO. 16
REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for restaurant / retail uses as
determined by Development Agreement for Bridgetower Commercial -- southeast
corner of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road
AGENCY
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: See attached leiter
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
ITD
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properlY of the City of Meridian.
{
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETINGCUP 06-008
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Monterey, LLC
ITEM NO. 17
REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for restaurant / retail / general commercial uses as
determined by Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Commercial — 2240 and 2300
Everest Lane
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
e
/Ir P-( / 6 , oO AZ 06-015
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Farwest, LLC
ITEM NO.
REQUEST GQn#Mjgd public Hearing from April 6,2006: Annexation & Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium
Density Residential)(168.23 acres), TN -R (traditional Neighborhood-Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N
(Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Sub - SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
See attached Comments
OTHER: See attached Affidavit of
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
2
4
Nt M�
s
¢ ' 1W
,'cul"#y�'s'
Y
' _ t
#3x� ,a'c
f:
U
•
APO / (i ")-0a PP 06-013
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Fal West, LLC
REQUEST
ITEM NO.
� public Hearin from A ril 6,
g P 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single
Family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on f R9 An .:-
Drnnnccrl D. n TAI n __ _.
•- ---- �• •-� u: lu 1--N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision -SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road
AGENCY
---
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
In AZ
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Staff Report In AZ
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:
See comments In AZ Packet
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.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETINGAZ 06-014
April 6, 2006
APPLICANT ATM Development, LLC
ITEM NO. 20
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Cabella Creek
Subdivision - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way
AGENCY
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: See affidavit of Po:
Contacted:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
4%.db. 'P^�.zly
Y
F
Y
j ,K H{t rrf {. "z, 'u . Yx, k ...i
s,r
s
e
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 6, 2006 PP 06-012
APPLICANT ATM Development, LLC
ITEM NO. 21
REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single-family residential lots and 11 common
lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision - northeast
corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way
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:
See staff comments In AZ Packet
See comments In AZ Packet
See comments In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the city of Meridian.
k
p
xtA
,+S
x # g
`'�
: h 1+k tip d .4•
y
r
t
e
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8
CUP 06-007
ZONING MEETING April 6, 2006
APPLICANT Affon-Pacific, LLC
ITEM NO. 22
REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a 2,580 square foot restaurant with a drive-through
on 0.73 acres in a C -G zone for Conglomerate Drive -Through B - southwest comer of
Eagle Road and Magic View Drive
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
See attached comments
OTHER: See attached letter from Blaine Jacobson; see attached letter from ITD
Contacted:
Emailed: Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.