2011 11-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 3, 2011
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 3, 2011, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom
O'Brien.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Freeman: Okay. Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call
to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on
this date of November 3rd, 2011. And let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I don't believe we have any changes to the agenda this evening, so could I get
a motion to adopt the agenda?
Marshall: So moved,
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Final Order for Approval: TEC 11-004 Medina Drive-Thru by
Meridian Gateway Associates Located at 1653 S. Meridian
Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 08-021) for aDrive-Thru
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 2 of 35
Establishment and Development of the Site at 1653 S. Meridian
Road
Freeman: Okay. The first item then -- or next item on the agenda is the Consent
Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. First the approval of the
minutes of October 20th, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and, second,
final order of approval for TEC 11-004 having to do with Medina drive-thru. Could I get
a motion to accept the Consent Agenda -- approve the Consent Agenda.
O'Brien: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Okay. We will move onto the other items on the agenda this evening.
Before we get going, though, I just want to take a moment to explain the process for all
of you that have come to attend and maybe offer testimony this evening. What we will
do is we will start out by opening each item tonight. We are going to open these two
items together for Chesterfield and, then, we will start with the staff report and staff will
present their findings as far as how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code. After we hear from staff the applicant will be given ten
minutes to come up and present their application and, then, after the applicant's
testimony we will open it up for public testimony. So, if you would like to testify on this
item, if you're here for that purpose, there is a sign-up sheet in the back. If you put your
name on there that helps. Anybody wanting to offer public testimony I will call your
name and you will be given three minutes to testify. If you are speaking for a group of
people and representing a group of people -- and I can take a show of hands indicating
who you're speaking for, you will be given up to ten minutes to testify. If you don't sign
up on the chart in the back -- on the list in the back that's okay. After I read all those
names off that list I will ask if there is anybody else that wishes to testify and you will be
given that opportunity. After all the public testimony has been heard the applicant will
be given ten more minutes to come up and address anything else that he wishes to
address. After which time we will close the public hearing and, then, the
Commissioners deliberate amongst ourselves, you will all be here to listen to all those
deliberations and, hopefully, we will be able to offer a recommendation at the end of the
evening.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2011: RZ 11-004
Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 3 of 35
of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 1.48 Acres of Land from the
R-8 Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District
B. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2011: PP 11-007
Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side
of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 148
Residential Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 28.2 Acres
in an Existing R-8 Zone and a Proposed R-15 Zone
Freeman: So, with that, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Items RZ 11-
004 and PP 11-007 regarding Chesterfield Development by Liberty Development,
starting with the staff report.
Parsons: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property
before you is located on the south side of Pine midway between Black Cat Road and
North Ten Mile Road. Tonight I will give you a brief presentation of some of the history
on this site, trying to move forward into what the applicant's proposing and, then, also
cover some recommended changes that the applicant's proposing before you this
evening, as well as some recommended changes that staff is proposing. So, if you'd
indulge me here, this property was annexed and zoned in 2003. Originally it was part of
the Chesterfield PD, which it granted reduced lot sizes, street frontages, and allowed for
a mix of product type, so it came in as a mixed use residential development. In 2008
Council denied the time extension, therefore, that basically caused the plat to expire
and the CUP to expire. The applicant is coming before you this evening proposing to
rezone approximately 1.4 acres of property from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone and the
primary reason for that is to basically -- the rezone itself will only affect about 15 lots.
So, if you look at this nice exhibit that the applicant's proposed, I have highlighted that in
red and so you can see those lots are basically going to be -- the applicant's proposing
to rezone that to R-15, so that this portion of the plat can mirror what's already been
constructed and approved with Chesterfield phase number one along the western
boundary. It's the applicant's intent to transition the test of it with single family lots and,
then, as you get -- go to the north with Castlebrook and, then, also these county subs,
there will be slightly larger lots. They do comport -- the majority of them do comport
with the R-8 standards and so looking at this and looking at the previous plat, this does
generally comply with those requirements. If you'd allow me a moment to step back
here, you can see on the left-hand side what staffs tried to do is show you what the
original plat looked like versus what the applicant is proposing now. You can see here
that back in 2003 there was the mix of residential lots that I explained to you, so there
were quite a few more alley loaded product there internal to the subdivision. Along the
southern periphery you can see there were some common drive lots and, then, internal
and along the perimeter were large -- smaller lots internally with larger 6,500 all the way
up to 8,000 square foot lots along the west -- excuse me -- the north and eastern
boundary. In the right-hand exhibit you can see here the applicant again has rezoned
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 4 of 35
that property, as I mentioned -- or proposing to mirror those alley loaded lots and the
majority of the lots will be anywhere from 5,000 square feet up to approximately 9,000
square feet. Average lot size for this subdivision is going to be anywhere -- going to be
7,300 square foot, approximately. I would mention to Commission that the previous
density approved with the old plat came in at 4.61 dwelling units to the acre. The new
plat that's proposed before you this evening is roughly at 5.25 dwelling units to the acre.
So, a slight increase in density. As well as lot count. The previous lot count for this
portion of the old plat -- there was a total of 142 lots. With the new plat the applicant is
proposing 148. So, again, a six lot increase over the previous version. Again, staff has
reviewed this for conformance with the UDC and the subdivision standard. Staff is
recommending some changes for the applicant and those are included in the staff
report. Also included with the rezone staff is recommending a development agreement
with the project and I will go into those with you a little bit further as I move along here.
So, right now if you look at this plat, the applicant -- according to the UDC the applicant
has to comply with the R-8 dimensional standards. In reviewing the plat some of these
lots do not comport with those standards. The applicant has been conditioned to
comply with that and they are aware of that and are willing to do that. Also staff has
reviewed this for consistency with the landscape ordinance and the site amenity
ordinance as well and there is some changes here that staff is recommending. Again,
the majority of the open space that the applicant's proposing is basically these drainage
lots that you see in the northwest corner, southwest corner and, then, northeast corner,
with a small node or pocket park here central to the development. With the submission
of the application staff was unsure what amenities the applicant was proposing, so in
their analysis in the staff report staff looked at those amenities allowed under the UDC
and felt it appropriate to condition the project to provide a picnic shelter and a tot lot and
so the applicant has -- wants some of that to change or possibly wants to discuss that
with you, but that's what stafFs recommendation is now. Also if you look at the second
portion of the plat -- I have got a little yellow remark there that talks about the extent of
block length where currently under the subdivision ordinance block lengths cannot
exceed 750 feet. From this intersecting road to the next is approximately 760 feet and
the applicant has been conditioned to comply with that. The applicant would like to
discuss with you this evening the possibility of building some flexibility in that condition
and I will go into that in further detail as well. The other issues that we have here is --
sorry, Ilost my train of thought here. So, we have got the dimensional standards that
they need to comply with, the pocket park, and, then, also staff has conditioned them to
add another micropath lot to stub to the planned pathway that may be along the railroad
corridor at some future date. The applicant has also proposed elevations with the
application. As part of the DA requirement staff is conditioning the applicant to get
planning department sign off for these elevations. In particular staff has concerns with
how these houses will front on public streets and common open space. In the Meridian
city design manual staff -- there is some guidelines in there that talk about using a mix
of similar materials or carrying those design elements to those facades that face
common open space and public streets and so staff felt it appropriate that the applicant
come in, work with planning department, prior to getting occupancy -- or a permit for the
homes to insure that those homes comport with the Meridian design manual. I would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 5 of 35
like to mention, though, that staff has received some written testimony on the project.
One was from the applicant. Again, he is concerned with some of the conditions that
staff has placed on the project and, then, staff has also received written testimony from
some of the adjacent property owners and that's presented to you on your hearing
outline this evening. So, basically, I have a petition from seven Castlebrook residents
saying that they are in opposition of the project. Their primary concern is the increased
traffic with additional homes and also with the lack of amenities that are currently
provided in the surrounding subdivisions and, then, also back in September we received
written testimony from Mr. Chris Vekerk in opposition for the same reasons, again,
traffic and lack of amenities. If I can step back to the applicant's testimony for a moment
and get back to that main slide here and kind of let you know what's happening here.
So, applicants given written testimony. The way staff has it conditioned in the staff
report, that pocket park that I have highlighted here on the exhibit is conditioned to
happen with phase three. Now, it's always been the pleasure of the Commission to
require those amenities at an earlier phase, so that -- to insure that those amenities are
in place when people start inhabiting the subdivision. The applicant would either like
the option to either move those amenities to a different common lot in the subdivision or
just change that to read: Provide that amenity with phase five. The phasing -- this plat
is proposed for six phases, so five and six kind of straddle the park right now, if you
remember how it was in the staff report. So, the phase line bisects the park here and so
if staff felt this was an important amenity to be provided in an earlier phase and that's
why we are sticking with phase three. Staff would still -- the applicant also was toying
with the thought of asking you to strike the requirement for the tot lot. Staff -- because
this is a rezone and there is a DA involved, staff feels that this can be included as an
amenity as part of the DA, so we feel that we should basically keep the site with the
approval of two amenities as staff has recommended and I will go into some of the
additional DA language as well. And, then, also going back to the block length, the
applicant would like some flexibility in condition 1.2.4, I believe it's bullet number two or
three in the staff report, that either they provide that extra micropath lot that I discussed
with you or, basically, realign this road to make up that ten feet and comply with the
seven foot block length requirement in the UDC. Staff is amenable to changing that
condition to read as such. And the applicant would also like the Commission to act on
the amount of open space to be provided in the staff report. Right now the way the
condition 1.2.3 reads staff has conditioned the applicant to provide 3.09 acres of open
space. The UDC requires ten percent. So, technically, the applicant could provide 2.8
acres of open space and still comply with the UDC. Staff is okay with the requirement
to either say 2.8 acres or simply say provide ten percent open space, however you
choose to go with that we are fine with that, but, again, we are recommending that the
applicant provide a picnic shelter and a tot lot on -- with that planned pocket park. And
so leading into my closure here, again, staff is also requesting that Commission add
some additional provisions to the DA. The main reason for it is given the amount of,
you know, public testimony and some concerns the neighbors are having, staff feels
there is some -- should be some additional DA provisions that should be incorporated
into that, other than just the building elevations. So, in your hearing outline staff has
provided the language for you this evening and, basically, the one -- one DA provision is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 6 of 35
that the applicant -- the subject property shall develop with a maximum of 148
residential lots as generally configured on the proposed preliminary plat, unless
modified by City Council and, then, the second DA provision staff is asking the
Commission to add to the development agreement is the applicant shall provide either --
shall provide a minimum of two point acres of common open space and include the
following amenities: A covered picnic shelter and a tot lot on the planned pocket park.
So, I know, again, staff is recommending approval of the plat and, in summary, the plat
does generally conform with the dimension standards of the UDC, it does generally
conform with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as medium
density residential. Maximum density allowed for that land use is up to eight units to the
acre and, again, the applicant is providing -- it's a 5.25, which is well below what's
allowed under that zoning designation. Staff feels that the proposed plat complies with
the adjacent properties to the northwest and Ada County parcels to the east and so staff
is, again, recommending approval of the plat as stated and, of course, with the
conditions in the staff report and amended DA provisions that I just presented to you.
To staffs knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues before you and with that I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff?
O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Bill, can you depict the -- the future pathways connections
somewhere on your diagrams?
Parsons: Sure. If you recall -- sorry. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, when
you say pathways, do you mean the internal pathway or pathways --
O'Brien: The one that's going to connect from the Meridian major pathways. Is there a
connection to those coming into the subdivision?
Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, the -- the one -- the plat that you see -- this concept
plan you see here doesn't show the pathway, but staff has conditioned -- if you look in
the southwest corner -- or, excuse me, the southeast corner you can see that micropath
lot there, in the staff report the applicant is conditioned to widen that and add a five foot
pathway there to connect to the regional pathway along the railway corridor and they
are in agreement with that condition. So, that will be a change as the final plat comes
forward, but certainly that's a condition and they are in agreement with that.
O'Brien: Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you very much. That's all I have.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: A little clarification on that, Bill. Sorry, but when you say in lieu of the 750 foot
block going to 760, you're asking for a micro pathway; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 7 of 35
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: And is that in addition to the micro pathway we see there going to the
railroad?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. It would be an additional one.
Marshall: And where would that be located?
Parsons: Well, it's -- Commissioner Marshall, typically, I have conditioned them to
provide it somewhere mid block in between both streets to break it up, but the applicant
certainly has -- if they choose to go that route. If you recall they are proposing to either
comply with the 750 or provide that micropath lot. But I think it's conditioned to be
provided somewhere in here and that would be a minimum 15 foot wide lot, with five
foot planting strip on each side with a five foot meandering pathway to provide
connection.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could again.
Freeman: Yes.
Marshall: Bill, a couple quick questions also. So, we are looking 1.48 acres going to
an R-15 there in the red area. That's correct?
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: And what's the zoning on the other side there in Chesterfield?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that's zoning is R-8.
Marshall: It's R-8. Yet they were able to mirror it and we have to go to an R-15?
Parsons: That is correct. If I can elaborate a little more, Mr. Chairman. What has
happened is under that PD or the planned development they were allowed to have
reduced lot frontages. I believe it was 35 feet. And so that's how they were able to
create these alley loaded products. We -- under the current UDC we don't have any of
those requirements in place to allow you to reduce past the R-8 zoning standards. So,
the next zoning appropriate to allow them to mirror that and keep that consistency with
that project is to go to an R-8 -- or, excuse me, an R-15 zone. With that zoning district
there are no minimum frontage requirements, but there is minimum lot requirement of
2,400 square feet. So, there is some flexibility there, but as far as subdivision ordinance
or the zoning that they were annexed with and because that PD has expired, they can't
get that back and there is no other mechanism in code right now to allow that, other
than a rezone.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 8 of 35
Marshall: And that's because our zoning has changed?
Freeman: Not our zoning has changed, our -- the way we -- we don't generally do
subdivisions on the planned unit development anymore. We don't have that reduced
frontage requirement in the PD process anymore.
Marshall: Thank you.
Parsons: Yes.
Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Well, at this time if the applicant would like to
come forward. You have 15 minutes for comments and when you get to the mike,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold with CK Engineering, 860 Headwaters, Eagle Idaho. I won't take 15 minutes. I
think Bill's done a good job addressing most of the concerns. I will explain a little bit
more as to what has been constructed into the project. If you -- back in '08 -- '08, '07 --
'07, '08, there was a sewer project that was constructed through this site and it comes
down this and the alignment that Bill's showing here along -- oh, it's the north most road
and it goes all the way down to the south and stubs into the south boundary through
that common lot, that was a City of Meridian and -- a City of Meridian job that was done
that was based on the approved preliminary plat, assuming that this was going to come
back with a similar street layout and lot density. That also was -- also that was
constructed was the alley that is along our current western boundary, that alley serves --
or was planned to serve these future alley loaded lot and, again, the only thing that we
are rezoning -- and the only reason that we had to come in for a rezone was for
dimensional standards as Bill was suggesting. The remainder of the property is existing
R-8 and we are not proposing -- and I think at the first hearing there was quite a bit of
confusion about the fact that we were -- are rezoning the entire 28 acres. Going into the
other issue about the block length, you know, I think it's been so long since our guys
have put together a preliminary plat, it was a confusion about measuring block length
from near edge to near edge. Near edge of roadway to near edge, it was 720. We are
ten feet off. I think we can comply with the 750, but -- and in agreement with the staffs
recommendation that we can either put a common lot -- another common lot down there
or we will just comply with it. It's also important to note in the first phase of the
development there is a significantly sized tot lot and we provided in that phase 12
percent open space and, again, in this one we are currently just over ten percent at
3.09. All that is required is 2.8. We are proposing pathways through all of the common
spaces that you see before you, the two southern and northern common lots, and we
are in agreement with staff. We will put astub -- a pathway down to the south to the
future pathway. The main issue I think that we have tonight that we will have not come
to an agreement with staff was the timing of the common lot. All of the utilities and all of
the infrastructure is along the current western boundary of this site. From an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 9 of 35
engineering standpoint, from a marketing standpoint, we don't want to bring on a whole
bunch of lots onto this market all at once. We believe that our phasing is -- is a correct
market driven phasing plan. If we bring on additional lots Iwould -- in our opinion we
are bringing on more than the market will demand and if it is deemed by the
Commission tonight that we need to have that tot lot amenity right away, we would
suggest putting it into a different common lot than what is proposed tonight. With that
being said I will stand for any questions that the Commission has.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Could you walk me through the phasing just a little bit? How many lots are you
intending to include in phase one?
Arnold: Let me get -- Bill, if you could pull up the preliminary plat or show me how to --
Parsons: Sure.
Arnold: -- switch over. I will give you a general idea. I'm going to have to grab my map
to -- the first phase is coming in approximately right here, picking up some alley and
some single family product type. The first phase is about 30 lots. Second phase is
down in this area. I can point on here, too. It's around in here. Third phase is up in the
northern portion up around in here and it is approximately 27 lots. And, then, the fourth
phase is -- well, I guess the third phase is more in this area. And, then, the fourth phase
we start building -- oh. Third phase is 27 lots. Fourth phase is about 28 lots. And it's in
generally this quadrant here. And, then, the fifth phase picks up this -- the tot lot that we
are proposing and, then, the last phase is adjacent to the canal and, then, up in this
area. And they are all approximately 28, 26, and the last phase is the smallest at 17
lots.
Rohm: Okay. That's what I was after, so --
Arnold: In order to bring in -- go up to the phase five, we would be almost bringing in
over a hundred lots pretty -- pretty quickly. I'm mean it -- about 60 with what we are
proposing and it would be about another 60 more than what we would like to bring on at
that time. We are assuming one phase per year, hopefully. Hopefully the markets take
that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Any other questions of the applicant?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 10 of 35
O'Brien: Just a quick question.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, just to clarify, when -- you're going to be bringing in the -- the -- that open
space with the tot lot and the small park area in phase three?
Arnold: No. We are planning to propose it at phase five.
O'Brien: Bill, didn't you say that --
Arnold: Staff -- I'm sorry. Staff is recommending that it be brought in at an earlier
phase.
O'Brien: Yeah. Okay. Just --
Arnold: And the only problem -- I mean we don't have a problem building the tot lot and
what staff is recommending, it's just bring on all the additional product type that we don't
believe the market will absorb.
O'Brien: So, if you're going to have a hundred homes in three years, you still won't have
a lot there for the customers to use; is that right?
Arnold: Based on one phase per year that would be correct.
O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have.
Freeman: Any other questions?
Rohm: I guess back to that tot lot. One of the items of discussion was to relocate that
from this fifth phase common area to one of the other two common areas that are going
to be part of phase one and/or two. Do you feel like it's appropriate to put the tot lot in
one of those common areas?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, it would be our preference to leave it as is,
as we proposed. If it's the direction of the Commission to bring on an amenity sooner
than phase five, we would propose to move it to a different common lot.
Rohm: I'm pretty sure that we are going to think along those lines. I can't speak for the
rest of the Commission, but generally speaking the common areas we'd like to see them
develop up front, rather than at the end of a project. So, I guess we will see where that
goes as we continue our discussion.
Arnold: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I can tell you the common lots that we are
proposing that will be up front will be -- I mean these two larger ones and so there will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 11 of 35
be -- you know, there is walking pathways in these two locations as amenities. I guess
if it is the direction the Commission tonight wants the tot lot within a phase of -- the third
phase, we would suggest locating it in one of these areas.
Rohm: I think that's appropriate.
Freeman: Yeah. I guess just to clarify, we understand that those other two open
spaces would be in your earlier phases, but there is a difference between open space
and amenities as defined by the UDC and open space without amenities is what you
would be doing and what we are concerned about is the amenity and when that would
be provided, which would be the tot lot, just to clarify. Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: Mr. Chair. I do have a couple questions for you. First, I'm going to ask are
you aware of and familiar with the material that was received from the other Chesterfield
residents?
Freeman: I have not seen that yet.
Marshall: Okay. It talks about the concern about the amenities and the overload on the
existing swimming pool and they felt -- have you worked with them at all on this? You
have had some neighborhood meetings and talked to them about it?
Arnold: Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, we had a neighborhood meeting way back
in June and at that neighborhood meeting there was about seven or eight people that
showed up. Some had concerns about what was going on with the property. It was
brought to our attention about the -- the pool, what was going on. And that's in
Castlebury, I believe?
Marshall: Uh-huh.
Arnold: That current amenity was having some overload issues with kids. We did say
that we would be providing a tot lot that we would provide an amenity within this
subdivision, not to the extreme of a pool, that's a pretty significant amenity to provide for
this size of a sub. Apparently at the September 15th hearing there was a significant
amount of people that showed up at that meeting with concerns and at that time staff
thought it was potentially the thought that we were rezoning the entire thing as R-15.
So, at the -- at a later date mailed out another -- basically a meeting request to all of the
people that signed up on the mailer. I suggested either another meeting or getting
together one on one or, you know, give me a call and let's discuss what your concern
was, because I thought the main thing was the rezone for the R-15. I think people had
issues, they thought we were going to increase the density to R-15 on the entire project.
I heard back from one of the gentlemen that represented the neighborhood association.
I believe it was the Castlebury or -- I don't -- I didn't get his name. He did say that they
were -- they were concerned about traffic and they were concerned about having us
provide an additional pool and I did explain to that gentleman that that was not our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 12 of 35
intention to do an additional pool, but that we would provide some sort of tot lot or
common area within the subdivision.
Marshall: I'm assuming that might have been Mr. Chris Vekerk. At one time he was
part of Castlebury homeowners association and you were -- so, you were aware of the
issue with the overloading of the pool. So, are all of these new lots to be a part of the
same homeowners association also to be using that same amenity?
Arnold: Currently it is that way. I mean if it is the direction of the Commission -- I mean
it could be something that we would pull out of the CC&Rs or existing homeowners and
this be its own subdivision and not a part of the other.
Marshall: Uh-huh.
Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Well, we will have an opportunity later. Thank
you very much. At this time I'd like to open up the floor to public testimony. I do have a
list of several names here. Again, when you come up as I call your name indicate to me
whether you still intend to testify or not. Speak your name and address clearly into the
microphone and we are going to hold your comments to three minutes each, unless
you're speaking for a larger group and, then, let me know and we will potentially give
you ten. The first person on the list is Heather -- and I can't tell if it's Wiemer or Wiemer.
Okay. Heather is not going to testify at the moment. Next on the list is Guy Colwell.
Okay. Please state your name and address into the microphone.
Colwell: My name is Guy Colwell. I live at 1030 North Manship in the Castlebrook
Subdivision. Chesterfield has actually been annexed into the Castlebrook Subdivision,
so I'm also a member of the board for the homeowners association. When we were first
informed of this plat being -- part of the plat being rezoned and, then, the rest of it going
in, we had some concerns. Our primary concern was the initial lack of amenities. The
-- can you go to the -- yeah. That one. When we -- the board had an opportunity to
meet with Corey Barton, who is the house -- the home -- the developer for the homes,
which is different from the land developer. Corey Barton indicated to us at that time --
and he provided a plat for us to view. On that plat the three common areas that are the
run off were on there, but the planned pocket park at that time was not indicated. There
was no indication that there was going to be any tot lots or any extra amenities in the
open areas or, basically, the run off areas. So, as a board we were really concerned
about the lack of amenities coming in with 148 new homes. We were also very
concerned that adding 148 new homes to the subdivision would have an adverse
impact on our community pool. Right now between Castlebrook and the existing
Chesterfield we have 336 homes and the pool was built -- it's a 36,000 gallon pool. It
has a residential size sanitation system. It is -- during the summer it is at capacity
virtually every weekend. Our concern is that bringing in 148 new homes will make the
pool unsafe. The load on the sanitation equipment will be too much, honestly. We have
had some estimates done for us by some contractors on what it would take to get the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 13 of 35
sanitation equipment up to the requirements it would take to, basically, take care of the
existing load and possibly the new load that this extension would bring in.
Freeman: Mr. Colwell, we are going to have to ask you to wrap up quickly, because we
have exceeded our three minutes.
Colwell: So, basically, that as a member of the board that's our concern is the lack of
amenities, although I'm really happy with the planned pocket park. This -- you know, as
far as this type of amenities, the open space and tot lot, the covered picnic area, that
will be great, we are happy -- I'm happy with that. I'm also happy with the rezoning,
because it mirrors the existing -- on what's already there. It mirrors that. But I'm still
concerned about the impact on the community pool. I will take any questions or --
Freeman: Thank you very much. We have several people that want to speak, so I think
we will --did you want to ask a question, Commissioner --
Rohm: I have --
Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, go ahead.
Rohm: Yeah. I do. Was this proposed subdivision that we are speaking to tonight a
part of the overall plan at the time that your portion was built a number of years ago?
Colwell: Right. When Castlebrook was first started Chesterfield was not a part of
Castlebrook. It was annexed at a later -- at a later time. I believe it was annexed about
phase two or phase three of the Castlebrook
Rohm: How did it get to be included as part of the CC&Rs of your subdivision if it wasn't
part of --
Colwell: I'm not -- you'd have to talk to probably Corey Barton. He would be able to
explain how Chesterfield was annexed into Castlebrook.
Rohm: Okay. All right. I was just curious. Thank you.
Colwell: Okay. Thanks.
Freeman: Thank you. Next on my list Josh Alvy. And please state your name and
address for the record.
Alvy: My name Josh Alvy. 1 live at 4196 West Farlam Drive in the Chesterfield
Subdivision. I agree with all of the issues that have been stated already. Adding 148
homes also adds the potential of 300 or more new vehicles on a one inlet street on
Pine. There is no other outlet out. Also the pool is very small. It's not for the capacity
and is full all summer long. The applicant did mention the possibility of dividing out the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 14 of 35
subdivisions into two different homeowners associations. Castlebrook and Chesterfield.
I would agree with that, as long as a pool was put into Chesterfield as a very necessary
amenity I know all of my neighbors enjoy and if we were to have separate homeowners
associations we wouldn't have the same access to that pool. So, I would point that out.
But those are my comments.
Freeman: Okay. Any questions?
O'Brien: One question, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I'm not sure if this is for Josh or not, but what you're saying is that if
Chesterfield was a separate subdivision from Castlebury -- Castlewood is it?
Alvy: Castlebrook.
O'Brien: Castlebrook. Then they wouldn't have access between -- the people in
Chesterfield couldn't cross over to the other one and vice-versa?
Alvy: My understanding of homeowners associations would be you have access to
what is part of your homeowners association.
O'Brien: So these aren't public pools?
Alvy: No. It's a homeowners association pool from --
O'Brien: Oh, my gosh.
Marshall: I think this can be clarified by the developer, but I believe when he said
separated out, we are talking about the new addition being a separate subdivision stand
alone.
Alvy: Well, it would be part of the existing subdivision that we are currently in.
Marshall: It would be next to, but you could rename it as a separate subdivision. It
could be done. And I believe that's what the developer was talking about. But I will
allow him to verbally address that later.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Josh. David Wright. You will get tired of me saying it, but
I'll remind everyone. Please state your name and address for the record.
Wright: My name is David Wright. I live at 4124 West Meadowpine Street in
Chesterfield Subdivision and we live at the end of West Meadowpine Street where the
new subdivision is planned to be built and one of the reasons we moved there was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 15 of 35
because of the -- of the small amount of traffic and stuff. We have five children. And, of
course, that's one of my main concerns is the amount of traffic that this will create. Like
Josh said, there is only one outlet going to Pine right now and with 148 new homes
there is going to be a lot of traffic that that's going to create and it's at least two or three
cars, probably, to each home. One of my other concerns is -- if I understand this right,
they are going to mirror the -- the townhouses already built here and put others on the
other side of them and that's -- I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work, if they are
going to share the same common alleyway there that's kind of a concern to me,
because it's only wide enough for one car to go by and to me that. kind of looks like an
accident waiting to happen. You know, for the lack of amenities as everyone has
already addressed. With the pool I see it very crowded at times -- overcrowded, in fact,
for the number of homes there is and -- and I don't want to lose -- I mean we enjoy the
pool also. It's not something that we want to lose. Hopefully, the new subdivision can
be -- have its own homeowners association. That would, you know, be my hope for
that, too, so that they wouldn't have to be part of our existing homeowners association
and they can have their own amenities, because I think that ours would be just -- ours is
not enough to -- for all these new homes that will be built.
Freeman: Thank you.
Wright: Thanks.
Freeman: Questions? Okay. Okay. I'm going to try to get this one right. Oleydi
Wright? You wish not to speak at the moment. Okay. Michael Chicowski or Chicowski.
I probably buthered it. Either way, I will just stop trying and let you state your name and
address for the record. My apologies.
Chahowski: My name is Michael Chahowski and I live at 4185 Meadowpine in
Chesterfield and I agree with pretty much all the concerns that people have brought up
about the lack of amenities, the traffic that would be created because there is still only
one outlet, and probably primarily the pool issue. We have been to the pool several
times last summer and, yeah, it was packed. It was well overloaded and with a two year
old it was really hard to keep them from getting knocked over by all the other people
that were trying to fight for the pool. So, I think that's it.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Holly Wheelock. Holly does not wish to testify at this
time. Troy Behunin. Please state your name and address for the record when you get
to the microphone.
Behunin: Mr. Commissioner, fellow commissioners, my name is Troy Behunin. I live at
4690 West Gillette. I'm here to address you this evening as a citizen in the Castlebrook
Subdivision. I was actually -- I'm a part of phase number one in Castlebrook and just as
an item of clarification and housekeeping, the Chesterfield Subdivision was not annexed
into the Castlebrook Subdivision until 2007. So, that was at the end of phase four or
five. I have some friends that are here tonight to testify and it actually happened after
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 16 of 35
they bought their home in 2007. I'm going to try and cover a lot of ground. I know I only
have three minutes. As the rezone staffs recommending a development agreement be
placed on -- on this development. I would strongly urge and suggest and, frankly,
request that you do take staffs recommendation to extend additional conditions of
approval through that development agreement, which is a mechanism that this body
and that this city has to employ things that need to be taken care of. We have heard
about a lack of amenities. We have talked about -- well, we have heard lots of
discussion about the traffic on Pine. One hundred and forty-eight homes, just as a
small traffic generation tool, ten trips per day. Ten trips per day. That's 1,480 trips per
day -- additional trips per day on a street that is not connected to any other street,
except for Black Cat and I can tell you right now that the near collisions that happen at
Black Cat and Pine, those are not calculated or shown on a traffic impact study. Okay?
I pass by that intersection at least three times a day and I can tell you there is a number
of them and the impact alone just on traffic is highly concerning to me as a resident,
because I have to go through there, my wife goes through there. My kids on a school
bus have to go through there twice a day. The other thing that I wanted to talk about --
there is a huge impact -- we have heard some discussion about this undersized pool. It
is an undersized pool. I frequent the pool. Not only is there a problem with real estate
when you go to visit the pool, but I have to contend with 332 other people and families
that are in town that do have the ability to -- to use the pool during the sometime. In
addition to the real estate, you have things that are health problems. Waterborne
illnesses, for example, that can cause some serious problems. Cryptosporidium is -- is
a waterborne illness and the more that you lap onto an already overloaded pool the
greater the chance that we have -- that we have of getting waterborne illnesses, okay?
And that's just one of them. There is a number of them. The other thing that I would
like to talk about --
Freeman: Mr. Behunin, that's our reminder we are going to have to wrap up quickly.
Behunin: Okay. I'll make my --
Freeman: That's our three minute mark.
Behunin: I'll make my comments short, then. The other thing that I would like to do is
that -- as part of your development agreement I would strongly recommend that there
be some kind of condition for this subdivision to create its own HOA and to not continue
using the Castlebrook amenities, the Castlebrook pool, and the Castlebrook things that
are offered to the Castlebrook residents. It has a -- it has a Chesterfield name on the
final plat. The final plat says form a Chesterfield HOA and the only way that that got
annexed in is because the developer at that time was able to exercise a certain amount
of votes and he was able to out vote the people in Castlebrook and that's how it got
voted in and in closing I would just like to say that if a pool is not completed or is not
conditioned as an approval requirement for this development, then, the Chesterfield
development will, then, continue to have a huge impact on my neighborhood where I
live with all of the benefits and none of the impact. There is a huge impact, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 17 of 35
they walk over, they drive over, and it's a small parking lot, it's undersized, and they get
all of the benefit and they don't have the impact. I suggest that you request and require
them to form their own HOA. And I would stand for any questions.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time?
O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Are you aware of any health issues -- documented health issues?
Behunin: I am not. I am not at this time, but I do know -- I can tell you this: Just this
past summer I know that the pool was closed down a number of times. Three visits that
I visited and I don't even go on Sunday. I only go Monday through Friday. But there
were three times that I went due to either related issues or equipment failure because of
vandalism or whatever, the pool was shut down. I had family in town. We were not
able to even use my --the pool that I paid for annually, the things that I try and take care
of. And even though I'm not on the HOA board, when I do visit the site and I frequent it
often, my friends and I, we try and take care of it, we try and pick up trash. We try and
pick up things, try and straighten up things, we try and keep our eye on it. I pass by
there frequently to visit my friends that are here and like to testify and they frequent my
place. And, I'll tell you, we keep. an eye on it, not because we are on the HOA, we do it
because we are trying to be good stewards of our neighborhood and we are trying to
make sure that what we are investing -- that we have invested into is taken care of.
O'Brien: Thank you. You have answered my question before, so thank you very much.
Behunin: Okay.
Freeman: Any other questions?
Marshall: I would just like to make a quick statement, Mr. Chair, if I could?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I would like to remind you, though, that those people in the HOA, even though
they may be from Chesterfield, also pay the same dues and must help pay for that. So,
when there is vandalism and damage they also are paying and I'm sure that most of
those are aware of that as they are writing out homeowners association check.
Behunin: Absolutely. And our only concern is that the more you throw onto it or that is
thrown onto it the greater the chances for more vandalism and we don't like having extra
fees added onto -- we haven't as of yet --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 18 of 35
Freeman: Mr. Behunin, I'm going to have to limit it there, so we can get onto our --
thankyou very much.
Behunin: Sure.
Freeman: Jill Ball. Please state your name and address for the record.
Ball: My name is Jill Ball and I live at 4100 West Hearst, which is in Castlebrook. We
are in the last phase of Castlebrook and we actually are very close to the pool and when
we purchased our home in 2007 we were not told that Chesterfield was technically
getting annexed into us. We were told this is Chesterfield, they showed us a plat, here
is all the houses and they told us at the time all these houses are for this one pool,
which originally when Castlebrook was platted -- the pool was platted for the third
phrase -- second or third phase, it was actually bigger. So, there was already issues
that the developer kept pushing the pool back farther and people that bought in the first
phase were told we are going to have a pool, it's going to be big enough to
accommodate all of you and, then, when it originally -- they kept pushing it back, we got
a really small pool that does not accommodate our neighborhood, that's even before
Chesterfield came into the picture, and they, 1 think, in my opinion, were sneaky and put
in a filter that is not acceptable for aresidential -- they put in a residential pool for one
family, not for a neighborhood of 333 homes. And so there is a problem. It is constantly
breaking, people are getting sick. I know of a family -- it was not documented, but
know of a family that got really sick this summer and it was because of the pool. The
pool was closed down for a lot of sick reasons, different things like that. There is a huge
concern about Pine. The intersection of Black Cat and Pine has a blind spot and there
are a lot of accidents there and if you put this many more homes and this many more
cars there there is going to be a big problem.
traffic's a problem. My biggest problem is that
not told that Chesterfield is part of us. We
annexed Chesterfield into our homeowners.
says it needs Chesterfield's homeowners as
Chesterfield. If you need to keep the first phi
next phases their own homeowners. The pro
street and you have all these people in ChestE
Pine, which is a serious issue for kids. Kids
street, which is going to be very busy. So, I ;
create their own homeowners or -- and they
So, the amenities are a problem. The
when we purchased our home we were
bought in Castlebrook and, then, they
f you look at Chesterfield's plat on it it
;ociation. I feel bad for the people in
se in Castlebrook, do that, but have the
Clem is Pine is going to be a very busy
rField walking or riding their bikes across
hould not be riding their bike across the
suggest that you guys demand that they
need a pool. These people bought in
Chesterfield, because they want the pool. They were promised a pool. The
Chesterfield people have a totally different side than the Castlebrook people, because
they come in and are told you get to use this pool, so that's what they are paying for and
they knew that. Castlebrook people didn't know that. So, I feel like we were kind of
blindsided and at the point that they annexed in Chesterfield we had no say, because
the developer had all of the votes and out voted us, so it didn't matter. It doesn't matter
what the homeowners say, because we already bought our homes. So, I think that I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 19 of 35
would hope that you guys look into these issues and really consider it, because there
are a lot of homeowners that are going to be impacted now because of this.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Next would be Ryan Ball. Please state
your name and address for the record
R.Ball: Ryan Ball. I'm also at 4100 West Hearst Drive in Castlebrook Subdivision and I
just -- you know, without being too repetitive, you know, the main concerns with traffic,
feel the same concern with traffic, you know, a number of times personally -- you know,
kids will be kids a lot of times and sometimes they don't look when they are crossing the
street and there has been a couple of times where they have just gone across without
looking and, you know, had a near miss with them or a near hit with them. So, that's
also a major concern. But on top of that, I have the same concern with the -- the pool
being the issue, as far as -- you know, there -- I can remember a couple of times we
went to the pool with the kids and there was a green film of who knows what on top of
the water and it was because the -- the system that's currently in place in that pool could
not keep up -- could not keep up with the population of the hundreds of bodies that were
in there every day and so if we do add on more families and more homes, it's just going
to get worse. I mean they will probably have to shut down the pool on a regular basis
and so that is a concern and I would have the same recommendation of keeping those
subdivisions separate, having separate homeowner associations, so that whatever they
decide to do in that subdivision they can -- you know, they could, basically, have the
amenities that can handle all the new homes that are going to be in there and also
handle what already is a problem in Castlebrook. That's all I have.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. That is everyone that's signed up to offer
public testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to. Come on forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Escobar: Hi. My name is Jim Escobar. I live at 899 North Oxwich Avenue and that's in
the -- I almost said Chesterfield -- Castlebrook Subdivision. So, I can echo what
everybody is saying before as far as the road and the pool is concerned, but I guess
what -- what I want to point out is we have a developer who is very intelligent in how he
develops. He understands the way to play the game that he does. It's his business.
It's his life. We have a pool that was reduced in size. We have a filtration system which
the Planning and Zoning Commission does not check to insure that it's of adequate
size. It's been undersized and we are having issues with it as it currently stands. We
have the Chesterfield Subdivision that's been annexed -- I guess annexed is the right
word. Brought into the Castlebrook Subdivision in a way that, yes, he went through the
proper channels, but I think has been under the radar, and so I think he's playing his
side of the game right. However, I want to echo one big thing, other than the pool, it's
the road, that intersection of Pine and Black Cat is dangerous. There is a lot of cars
that currently do travel that intersection and, let's face it, the connection of Pine over to
Ten Mile is not going to be driven by ACRD, it's going to be driven by a developer and
this is the opportunity to be able to have a developer connect through to the end of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 20 of 35
particular development, which is a normal thing that I have to face as an architect when
I stand in front of the commission speaking with other jurisdictions. So, I think it only
makes sense to request this developer at least connect Pine through and potentially
even over the canals, since that will be a bridging point, that I don't see a developer on
the east side of the canal wanting to take on. That's it.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions?
Yearsley: I have one question.
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: What are your HOA dues?
Freeman: One -- 275.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. At this time the applicant, if you'd like to
come back forward, we can give you ten minutes to address anything that you have
heard.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, for the record Steve Arnold,
CK Engineering, 860 Headwaters. I guess the biggest concern that we are hearing
tonight is the addition of the 148 lots and their association with the pool site. I think the
simplest thing that we would suggest, if the Commission wants us to -- I don't think it's
the best planning, but to separate not the existing Chesterfield Subdivision, but this
proposed subdivision outside of the HOA and have it be a stand alone HOA, so that the
concerns of the neighbors are addressed in that aspect. We would be happy to address
-- or do that and that can be conditioned I believe in a development agreement as well.
In relation to -- I think the other issue that I think I heard tonight was the traffic. It should
be noted that we did submit a revised traffic study for this subdivision. All of the
roadways are operating at -- at adequate levels of service, if not high levels of service.
This trip -- the ten isn't exactly accurate. That's a standard that the traffic engineers
usually use, like about a 9.1 per household. This site was going to generate 1,411 trips,
111 in the a.m. peak hours, which is just over just -- or just under two trips per minute.
So, although it seems like there is a lot of traffic, when you look at the overall, the p.m.
and a.m. peak hour traffic is minimal. I mean it -- all the site entrances, the exiting out
to Pine, the exiting that we are going to connect to, we are well below their capacity.
Pine Avenue. It was stated that they were concerned about the over trip generation on
that. The -- Pine Avenue can carry up to -- it's a collector roadway. It can carry a
significant amount of traffic. It is well below the threshold currently and at build out of
this area. The intersection of Pine Avenue and Black Cat was looked at by our traffic
engineer. It will operate at acceptable levels of service at full build out with this
proposed and existing. We did -- one of the issues that we have with ACHD earlier that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 21 of 35
we were addressing was connectivity and building -- providing a road trust for extending
Pine across the bridge. Currently Pine, where it extends, where we are proposing to
extend, will end at a private road. That private road, as those parcels develop to the
east, they will build out Pine Avenue and ACRD will require that at that time to extend
Pine Avenue out towards Ten Mile. Right now it's currently a private road. We didn't
hear from any of those neighbors, but their biggest concern right now was having traffic
connect to their private road and we addressed a lot of their concerns earlier with
ACHD. The other issue with the amenity, you know, as we are proposing -- you know,
we are in agreement with staff putting the tot lot in there. Again, we could put that at an
earlier phase in a different common lot and that's what we would recommend if the
Commission has seen the need for that at a sooner phase than what we are proposing.
I think I have addressed the majority of the concerns, but I'll stand here for any
questions that you have.
Freeman: Are there any further questions?
O'Brien: I had a question. I'm not sure --
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Anyway, I'll get right to the point. When this is built out and the traffic study
was done, does that include other subdivisions that possibly could go in in and around
Chesterfield? I mean you're saying that right now it's a minimal traffic flow, but what
about the future of other things? How does that all fit together and who has the answer
for that? Is it Ada County Highway District or what? I'm not sure.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, yeah, we -- the traffic numbers on Pine
were very low. I mean the Castlebury has two entrances out onto Black Cat right now,
so when ACHD does a traffic study -- and I'm pretty familiar, I used to work there.
When they do a traffic study they look at zoning, they look at connectivity, they look at
existing roadways, traffic patterns. They look at the traffic analysis zones. They take
into effect the future build out of uses and the traffic engineer when they prepare the
traffic study that's what they look at. So, they have looked at the zoning, the existing
parcels, and interconnectivity and how it will affect Pine Avenue and the existing roads
that we are connecting into in Chesterfield. Those were all well below levels of service
-- acceptable levels of service.
O'Brien: What you were telling me, then, was the percent -- or traffic flow was only the
partial big picture if you will, inclusive of what subdivision you're proposing to put in
here, that's only a portion of what the traffic study entailed?
Arnold: No, that's not correct. The traffic study takes in everything.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 22 of 35
O'Brien: Right. But what about yours as a percentage or as a part of that whole picture,
what -- were you stating that impact that you're going to have or -- as a portion of the
overall study?
Arnold: The impact that our subdivision has, along with the existing traffic, the
roadways are going to operate at adequate levels of service.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Freeman: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Yearsley?
Yearsley: I have one. Would you be amenable to changing your phasing a little bit to
add the connection to Pine Street like in phase two, instead of into phase three?
Arnold: I'm not -- Commissioner, I'm not sure what -- exactly what that would benefit.
Yearsley: Well, right now the way you have got it, the way it looks like you're funneling
a lot of your traffic into the already phased development early on and, then, you're not
going to make that second connection to Pine until phase three or four?
Arnold: It's with phase three. I mean if that's something that that was a serious concern
we can look at, but the -- the roadways as proposed and with the phasing they are still
well below any --
Yearsley: Oh, I'm not worried about -- about traffic, I'm just worried about adding
increased traffic into the other subdivision for public safety for children and stuff like
that.
Arnold: And that's what I -- I mean with -- with the phasing that we have, I mean the --
the amount of traffic that's going to be going in there will be roughly the same with the
connections, as opposed to at full build out and we have I think 200 to 300 trips, even at
full build out it's still going that direction with the remaining coming out to Pine on that
main entrance. So, we wouldn't be really gaining anything by --
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, if I could real quick, clarify for myself -- ask a quick
question. How many lots are going to be built out before the connection to Pine?
Arnold: It will be approximately -- I think that's the third phase.
Marshall: Right. So, how many lots?
Arnold: Sixty.
Marshall: So, what we are talking about is 60 lots would, then, be filtering through the
existing Chesterfield before the connection to Pine and I believe that was some of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 23 of 35
complaint here. I believe that's what we were trying to reach. And so you would have
an additional 60 lots going through the residential streets there before you connect to
Pine and I believe what Commissioner Yearsley is suggesting that is if we redid the
phasing a little bit that it would alleviate a lot of concerns and problems and be better
neighbors.
Arnold: If that's -- I can tell you the -- from the traffic study the -- there is approximately
40 to 50 -- 400 trips -- or, excuse me, two to three hundred trips already going that
direction at full build out, so I'm not sure that we would be gaining --
Marshall: Going through the existing Chesterfield? To me I see the development here -
- most everybody is going to go out right out to Pine here, they are not going to go back
through the other Chesterfield to go out the other entry.
Arnold: I can show you -- do you have an exhibit on the traffic studies? That's what the
traffic engineer came up with.
Marshall: Really?
Arnold: But if that's a serious concern that this Commission has, I mean we can build a
temporary access out there or -- I just don't see where you're gaining a lot. But if that's
a concern --
Marshall: Okay.
Arnold: -- it's something we could look at.
Freeman: Any other questions?
O'Brien: I did want to make a comment, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Commissioner Marshall, you said going through the other Chesterfield. Are
you talking about Castlebrook?
Marshall: Chesterfield to the left --
O'Brien: Yeah.
Marshall: -- on the left-hand side is existing Chesterfield, the second part of
Chesterfield, supposedly.
O'Brien: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 24 of 35
Marshall: Now, as we are looking at this, where does Chesterfield -- the existing
Chesterfield connect to Pine?
Freeman: Right in the middle I think.
Marshall: There is a connection over there on the -- kind of on the left side. So, the
new 60 lots, before there is a connection, are going to file out through there and out that
drive. Now, you will probably get a few of them coming up through there, but, to be
honest, look at -- looking at most of this, where that second connection is, most of them
are going to go through that connection. I'm surprised you would have a large number
-- and you're saying that alarge -- even after build out a large number of these new
houses are still going to go through and go out that other exit.
Arnold: At least that's what our traffic study determined.
Freeman: Okay. Have we got our questions asked?
Yearsley: I think so.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. At this time could I get a motion to close the
public hearing for Items No. RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007, Chesterfield.
Marshall: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for RZ 11-004 and
11-007, Chesterfield. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Okay. Discussion? And I believe we have several things that we might want
to discuss.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Who would like to start? Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed, because I don't think the developer has
spend a lot of time trying to be a good neighbor and work with and address the
concerns of the neighbors. I don't think that's been done here and that's the purpose of
the original meeting with the surrounding people is they have concerns and we try to be
good neighbors and we try to do things that -- I understand the lot sizes, things like that,
but there is a serious concern and, to be honest, if you had anything to do with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 25 of 35
original annexation of Chesterfield with Castlebrook, I'm very disappointed in that.
Those people were deceived it appears to me. I'm not a part of that, but it really
appears those people were deceived. I'm disappointed in that. Very disappointed in
that. I think trying to put another 148 houses on a pool that's -- that's set up for
residential is absolutely asinine. It is a health hazard and 1 believe that we are grabbing
-- grabbing onto that to use it as another selling amenity and people will buy into the
house and, then, months later as they go to use the pool they will find out what kind of
condition it's in and the homeowners association fees are going to go through the roof
as that thing -- or they are just going to get rid of the pool. I don't feel like we are trying
to work and be a good neighbor. There is real concerns with traffic flowing through the
existing Chesterfield. I understand the traffic. I also understand how the software and
the algorithms work and they often take the shortest path -- path of least resistance. I
also know a lot of people don't necessarily drive that way. I, too, have some
background in traffic. I think by being a good neighbor and rephasing it -- and just
addressing that. I don't see any additional cost by making that connection to Pine.
There is not a huge additional cost. Plus it gives you a nice entryway and -- which is an
additional selling point. I do absolutely, Commissioners, believe that the amenities need
to be built early and I do believe -- Bill, I'm going to ask a question. Are there any
requirement on the tot lot? What does it mean to have a tot lot? What are the
requirements to qualify as a tot lot?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, there isn't a specific requirement, it just
says childrens play structure. So, when the applicant comes in with the final plat
application they usually provide a detail as to what that play structure is to look like. But
to have any technical specifics on it, we don't have any in the code.
Freeman: I assume staff -- I'm sorry, if I could interrupt. I'm assuming staff would have
to review that and see that it complies with the intent of the development agreement,
however.
Parsons: That would be correct.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, did you want to continue?
Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. To be honest, I -- you know, I'm all for the
zoning. I like the mirroring of -- and going to the R-15 seems appropriate to be able to
back up. The alleyways are always one one car alleyways. It's rear loaded. Those are
by design. I know there was a concern with that. I do appreciate the requirement for
the extension to Ten Mile, but there is an issue of that's somebody else's property and
we can't have them build on somebody else's property. That's a bit of a problem and I
believe ACHD's been working with that and requiring that and we can't require them to
go build on somebody else's property. That would be inappropriate. You just can't do
it. But to be honest, I do have some disappointments here and I think in the future I'd
really like to see some more work with the citizens and the people around you to be
able to try to come to some agreement, some appeasement. I mean nobody -- not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 26 of 35
everybody is going to be happy. Never going to be. That's just part of life. But at the
best when we have some concerns, you know, if we make just a little adjustment here
or a little adjustment there and it appeases some people, then, everybody is a little
happier and people will be more supportive. As far as the tot lot, because of the past
with the pool and stuff like that, assuming this is the same developer, I would like some
stringent conditions on that and I'm absolutely for every condition as created by staff.
That's all I have to say.
Freeman: Okay. Shall I go next or does somebody else want to chime in? I may come
back with additional comments, but there are a couple of things I just want to throw out
there, so that we are all aware and on the same page. A couple of the big issues that
are in my mind right now and there are others that I may get to later. Number one is the
-- the HOA and the structuring of the HOA and there has been some suggestions that
perhaps we have a separate HOA and that perhaps that be included in the development
agreement and I may have legal elaborate on this, but it's my understanding that as the
city and the UDC itself has no say on the structuring of an HOA. That's something
that's between HOAs and developers, 1 suppose, but we don't have any jurisdiction to
tell you this will be under a separate HOA. And you can elaborate on -- go ahead. Ted,
please.
Baird: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. I have put some thought to that as I went
through this earlier today. We always start with the assumption that what happens with
the HOA is between the homeowners and the HOA. However, it occurred to me this
evening, listening to the testimony, that we do have a mechanism where we might try to
require that and that's the rezone. The rezone is the opportunity to require things of that
nature. So, I have, in essence, changed -- changed my thinking on that over the course
of the evening and think that if that's what the Commission finds desirable, that you
could certainly condition that as a DA condition for the rezone.
Freeman: So, if I understand it, what you're saying is we could, as a -- because the --
the rezone is not something that is necessarily an entitlement, we could say -- we can
trade one for one. We will grant you the rezone on these conditions and one of those
conditions could be something like the structuring of an HOA.
Baird: That's correct. And that's based on the theory that you can outright deny the
request for the rezone without giving any explanation at all, just that you're not ready to
rezone that property.
Freeman: Okay. The other comment that I want to make -- and I may need Ted to help
me out with this one, too, is the concern about the pool, which seems to be an obvious
concern and if I were in your neighborhood I would have the same concerns. Again, the
-- the UDC requires a certain number of amenities and typically we will leave the choice
of amenities up to the developer. Some amenities are a lot more expensive than
others, so we don't typically say you have to provide this amenity or that. We can
recommend amenities. Often we will recommend an amenity that we think is maybe
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 27 of 35
equal with what we are giving away, in this case a rezone. I just wanted to state that,
because right now the recommendation for an amenity stands at a tot lot, which I think
is a very reasonable recommendation. We are not typically in the business as a city of
telling a developer that he must put a pool in his development. It sounds like there is
some very serious issues regarding that pool, which are probably an internal issue to be
resolved between developer and HOA or HOAs, whatever the case maybe. So, with
that I'm going to come back to some other comments, but I just wanted to get that out
there and have Ted explain some of these things to avoid us going down paths that we
probably can't go down or ought not go down. Ted, is there anything else that you
would clarify along those lines before we --
Baird: Commissioner Freeman and Members of the Commission, just to follow up on
your comments. When staff puts together their recommendations for DA conditions,
they look for conditions that are pretty much commensurate with the impact that the
rezone or the plat will have and that's why the tot lot seemed to be commensurate with
the additional lots that would be allowed by the rezone. To require a pool would
probably be above and beyond what would be necessary to mitigate for the effects of
the subdivision. I think staff would probably agree -- planning staff would probably
agree that a condition to have this be its own subdivision and the developer would
choose that it's going to be a nonpool subdivision, that encapsulates the impact
sufficiently. Those are the thoughts that I had.
Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Okay. Other commissioners comments, discussion?
Yearsley: 1'll go next.
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: As a fellow pool subdivision owner I echo their concerns. We have several
pools in our subdivision and most of them were built residential and are at over capacity
in most of our subdivisions. At that point I don't know that this development is big
enough to be able to financially pay for a pool to be put in. I echo Commissioner
Marshall's concerns that there was no coordination, because I think maybe working with
the HOA there could have been an agreement to pay for half of a pool and the HOA pay
for a half and you get two pools for your subdivision and you get a great marketing ploy
for your -- for the phase, which didn't happen, which is just really disappointing. I agree
that the tot lot should go in sooner, if not other amenities, and I believe that the access
to Pine should be at an earlier phase as well. I understand that traffic engineer saying
that there is going to be a lot of traffic going into the existing subdivision. Knowing a
little bit about traffic engineering, a lot of times they just take a split and say we are
assuming so much goes to this one and so much goes to this one. Looking at the
subdivision I don't see a lot going through the existing subdivision because of the way
the traffic is laid out. It's not conducive for most people to travel that way. So, with that
that's -- those are the conditions that I would recommend. If there is no agreement with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 28 of 35
a pool, I would recommend that they be not included with the HOA and not have access
to the pool, given the size and the number of lots to that pool.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: That's all I have.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: I have a couple of words. My first thought is -- is that -- and I have to agree
with Commissioner Marshall is that I don't think this was prepared right. I don't think we
are ready, to be honest with you. I think this is -- there is enough questions and issues
that I think the developer needs to go back to the drawing board and really discuss
those issues that have been voiced here this evening. In the pool thing I think a pool is
an non-issue with us. I don't think that should even enter into it. It's the -- it's the zoning
and the ability to handle facilities as drawn. The one thing that concerned me was there
is no -- I didn't see a defined phase that really made any sense as to how it was -- I saw
circles on the -- on the screen, but it wasn't defined to me exactly what those lines
represented. Having the tot lot far away from the phase two and three as he depicted is
-- I don't know, it just seems like it's stuck out there in left field and I think you did
mention that you might bring it back to the west, possibly, instead of leaving it where
you have it there shown on phase five. So, I think phase five is way too late. I think it
should be brought in at the earliest part of phase three somewhere to address the
issues of the development. Other than that Ijust -- I don't think it's really ready to -- to
really vote on it as we see it. I think there is just too many things in the development
plan we have to come up with to be sure we didn't miss something, because, you know,
once this is cast in concrete it -- you know, it's done and I don't think we can do that all
here. I just -- there is too many issues, too many concerns. That's my opinion.
Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Wow, I'm on a completely different page than my fellow commissioners here.
personally think that this application before us tonight should stand on its own merits. It
has 148 lots and it has 2.8 or whatever acres of common area that will be included and
have amenities placed on them at an appropriate time. The fact that this subdivision is
an attachment to a previous subdivision and the pool system -- and I agree with
everything that's been said on that, but that doesn't have anything to do with the
application before us tonight. That has an HOA impact. Our legal counsel has given us
a window of opportunity where we can make it a condition through the development
agreement to remove this subdivision from the existing HOA and I think that that in and
of itself addresses the -- the primary concern that is before us. Traffic will do what traffic
does. They take the path of least resistance and I'm not necessarily -- I don't know
which way people are going to exit that subdivision. My personal opinion is the 15 lots
that are part of the rezone are going to exit to the west and go through the existing
Chesterfield and exit out onto Pine and they are not to going to backtrack and exit
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 29 of 35
through the proposed additional access to Pine to the east. If -- if it's made a --
necessarily part of this project to build out that access to Pine Street as part of phase
two, I suppose I could support that. But Idon't -- I don't -- I don't think that in any way
it's necessary for phase one. The -- the fact that the amenities are supposed to -- they
are supposed to capture the needs of the lots being developed, I think that the tot lot
needs to come in as part of either phase one and/or two in that common area to the
north that is adjacent to Pine. That seems to be the appropriate place to put the tot lot,
but all of those things are in my mind tied to this application, not necessarily the issues
associated with the other developments, that it sounds like the developer himself pulled
the wool over your eyes, not this development. They didn't have anything to do with it, it
was a voting right because of lot ownership I suppose. So, in any case, in my mind if
we make it a part of our development agreement that they form their own HOA, they put
the tot lot as part of phase one or two and build out on the access to Pine Street as part
of maybe phase three, everything that this subdivision has for full development are
addressed if we take that route.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Commissioner Marshall, do you have
more comments?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'll try to take a stab at this, since --
Freeman: Well, I have a comment if you're -- before you do a motion. I was going to
come back --
Marshall: Oh, please. Oh, I apologize. I am in agreement with much of what
Commissioner Rohm had to say.
Freeman: Okay. I would like to add a few more comments. I mentioned I would come
back to this. I'm actually in agreement with Commissioner Rohm on several things,
although I do see issues with the pool, whether or not a pool is included in this
application isn't really a criteria by which the Commission can either recommend denial
or approval. The fact that we can include a requirement in a development agreement
that this development be under a separate HOA probably does as much as we can do
to alleviate that problem. I agree with that. For this particular application I understand
the traffic will increase. I would probably also have to admit that it was always
anticipated that it would increase and as long as we are not exceeding the design
capacity of those streets I think we have to accept the fact that as development
happens traffic is going to increase, as long as we stay within the designs of our -- our
roads and streets. The biggest issue I see with the development as it stands in and of
itself is the amenity that's required and I agree wholeheartedly that the amenity needs to
be included in the early phases of development. So, I agree with staffs
recommendation there. However, as the development develops and we grow towards
the east, I also think that the central planned pocket park is actually the ideal place for
the amenity and perhaps we would consider requiring a tot lot -- a small accessible tot
lot in the early phases and also a similar amenity in that park when it's done. That's a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 30 of 35
possibility in my mind that we would require tot lots as the thing is phased out. With that
that's the end of my comments, other than to the Commissioners. As we develop a
motion we have several conditions -- amended conditions that have been given to us by
staff, so we need to address each one of those conditions with our motion, as well as
any other conditions that we may have discussed here that you would want to add to
your motion. Commissioner O'Brien, did you have a question?
O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair. So, you're recommending that the planned pocket park stay
-- at least to where it's designed right now?
Freeman: I am recommending that the pocket park location stay where it is, because I
think it's an excellent -- excellent overall location that's central to at least the east half of
the subdivision. I also think it's the ideal place -- the best place for a tot lot, again,
because it's central and a pocket park. However, I think it's a bad idea to wait until that
park is developed until we provide an amenity.
O'Brien: Okay. So, having said that -- and my comments earlier, I think the phases are
kind of out of phase and out of place. What I would suggest, then, is why can't we
change the phases starting from the east to the west, instead of from the west to the
east?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien, I just think it's beyond the scope of our jurisdiction to
demand --
O'Brien: It was just a suggestion.
Freeman: I understand. I'm just answering the question. I don't. think we can get into
how they phase the project, other than, you know, in which phases, knowing it's going to
be phased, where we want to see the amenities in certain phases.
O'Brien: Is that something the developer can change or --
Freeman: I believe they could. Staff, is that the right answer? They could change the
phasing of this. I don't believe the phasing designations are actually part of this
approval, unless it becomes part of the development agreement. I'm going to shut up
and let you answer that forme.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you are correct. I mean the
applicant has the opportunity to change the phasing line, but keep in mind when the
applicant was providing testimony all of the services are coming from existing
Chesterfield. So, in order for the applicant to work east to west he will have to run all
the infrastructure -- all of that way and work his way backwards. So, that's why to them
-- from an engineering standpoint phasing makes sense starting with the alley loaded
lots and, then, progressing eastward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 31 of 35
O'Brien: Then you have answered my question. Thank you very much.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one quick --
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: -- question. If we do go to -- and I guess this is going to be more directly to
staff, because they will be in more of the review of this -- to put a tot lot in that north
portion, I would recommend that they move the drainage structure further to the north
closer to Pine and have the tot lot closer to the residents there and that way you're not
having the children so close to Pine would be my recommendation.
Freeman: Sounds like a good recommendation. Any other comments?
Marshall: I would ask would that be something we would want to condition or is that
something that would be a staff level approval?
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it might be advisable to reopen the
record and seek information from the applicant as to whether that's possible given the
engineering and the topography. Usually the drainage area goes in a specific spot. So,
before you go down that road you might want to take the opportunity to amend the
record.
Freeman: Understood. If we want to go down that road and I'm not convinced at this
point we want to. I think what we can do is condition that an amenity be provided and
trust staff to coordinate that with the developer to put it in an ideal location, rather than --
ratherthan dictating at this point where it would be located.
Marshall: And just suggest to staff maybe that it -- right up next to Pine would not be an
idea location.
Freeman: Yeah. That's on the record now.
Marshall: Yeah.
Freeman: I think that's good enough. That's my opinion.
Yearsley: And that was my -- my only request is just directing it to staff for -- during
their review.
Freeman: Yeah. I agree. Okay. Well, with that who is going to take a stab at this?
Commissioner Rohm was clearing his throat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 32 of 35
Rohm: No, I wasn't.
Marshall: I'll take a stab, but please -- I mean bear with me.
Freeman: We will bear with you if you go wrong. Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2011, with the
following modifications: There is to be an additional 15 foot wide connection with five
foot pathway to the trail system to the south, in addition to the one that's there, to
alleviate for the 750 foot block that we are at 760. Also that the applicant shall provide a
minimum of 2.8 acres of common area and open space and include the following
amenities: A covered picnic shelter and a tot lot by phase three, I believe. By phase
three -- prior to completing phase three. Those are to be offered. Also the exit to Pine
is to be constructed prior to the completion of phase two and the subdivision is to be a
separate entity from the existing homeowners associations of the combined Chesterfield
and Castlebrook Subdivision.
Freeman: There are also some DA provisions at the bottom there. Do you wish to
consider those? Two of them, I believe.
Marshall: And -- oh. Okay. Yeah. And the subject property shall -- shall develop with
a maximum of 148 residential lots as generally configured on the proposed preliminary
plat, unless modified by City Council. Now, did I go okay with that? All right.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry to interrupt.
Freeman: Bill, please.
Parsons: Just for clarification so I know what to add to my staff report moving forward
to Council on this. So, is it Commissioner Marshall's requirement for a separate HOA to
be part of the development agreement as a DA provision I assume? Not a condition of
the plat.
Marshall: Correct.
Parsons: Okay. Further clarification on your motion for bullet point -- condition 1.2.4.
Basically, staffs already conditioned them to provide that micropath lot as you stated.
The applicant is simply requesting you give them one -- either option. One, they either
comply with the 750 feet or put in the micropath.
Freeman: And was that --
Marshall: That is my intention. That is my intention.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 33 of 35
Parsons: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you for those clarifications, Bill. I have a motion.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded -- and I'm not going to try to repeat all of this
-- to recommend approval for RZ 11-004 and PP 10-007.
Marshall: Eleven.
Freeman: Oh. Thank you. 11-007. As amended. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Let me make one last comment before we adjourn.
Freeman: Sure.
Yearsley: The residents here said that there was a lot of concerns with the traffic and
safety at Black Cat. I actually serve on Meridian's transportation safety committee,
which meets every third Tuesday? Tuesday. Sorry. If you're that concerned about it,
ACHD does attend those meetings. Please, call, have it be put on the agenda and
come state your claim. They will look into it and report back to that commission and
make any recommendations for improving that safety. So, if you're concerned about
that enough, please, make that recommendation and come in and talk to us about that.
Marshall: Along that same line, there is another commission called the traffic task force
that also would like any comments or recommendations. So, you have the traffic task
force and the traffic safety commission.
Yearsley: Correct.
Freeman: Thank you. It's been asked what the date and time is on --
Hill: The third Tuesday.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 34 of 35
Yearsley: It's the third Tuesday. But you need to call and ask to get that put on the
agenda. So, if you call the city clerk's office and ask that intersection be put on the
agenda, then, you can come up and talk about it.
Marshall: And --
Hill: You can contact me at the clerk's office.
Freeman: Thank you.
Marshall: And the traffic task force is the first Thursday of every month.
Yearsley: They don't typically deal with --
Hill: I don't think they do -- yeah, I don't think they do --
Marshall: Try to highlight -- prioritize intersections that may need updating and so we
do try to prioritize those intersections and so that information probably would be very
good to come from the traffic safety commission, too.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Freeman: Thank you for that clarification, too. Do I have one more motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:44 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 3, 2011
Page 35 of 35
APPROVED
_-~ .___._______-. 11 ~ I~ ~ l l
REEMAN - CHA MA DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: tJ"~'
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN -CITY CLER
G/'Q,nzenAV~U~ ,
~Qs° J
V
A /~ ~tY ~
~'~ ' ' IDAHO
~!' S~1"lir r
r
0
,~r~~a~tleiRE~b~p6 ~