HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 02-24CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 3, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting: Approve
S. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
033 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital
Development — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder
Road: Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 71 single-family
residential building lots and 7 common lots on 19.07 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by
Capital Development — north of West Ustick Road and east of North
Linder Road: Approve
D. Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
for Approval: PFP 03-004 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 3.775 acres in a C -N zone for Cherry
Crossing Commercial Subdivision by Hawkins Companies —
northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road:
Approve
E. Ratify Adoption of Resolution No. 04-426 : Amendment to
the Collective Labor Agreement, between the City of Meridian
and Local #2311 International Association of Fire Fighters:
Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda— February 24, 2004 Page I of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall became property of the City of Meridian
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Resolution No. 04-427 Park Fee Use 2004:
Approve
G. Resolution No. 04-428 Third Party Billing
Agreement Service Fee: Approve
H. Three Party License Agreement with NMID — Eight Mile Lateral
Sewer Crossing: Approve
I. Well #26 Test Well Lot Lease with Goldcreek Developers:
Approve
J. Well #26 Test Well Drilling Contract with Adamson: Approve
K. Well #20 Piping Pressure Zone Modifications Agreement —
Civil Survey: Approve
5-L. Agreement with Meridian Youth Baseball: Approve as
Amended
M. Development Agreement: AZ 03-026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to C -G and I -L zones
for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte — south of East
Fairview Avenue, and west of North Eagle Road: Approve
4. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department — Brad Watson
1. Discussion of Water Division Space Analysis Study:
Table to March 9, 2004
5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) L
6. Tabled from February 17, 2004: FP 04-008 Request for Final Plat
approval of 56 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on
17.8 acres in an R4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No 9 by
Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and south of West
Chinden Road: Table to March 2, 2004 Meeting
7. Tabled from February 17, 2004: FP 04-007 Request for Final Plat
approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on
11.96 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No 10 by
Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and south of West
Chinden Road: Table to March 2, 2004 Meeting
Meridian City Council Agenda— February 24, 2004 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Maidian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8. FP 04-005 Request for Final Plat approval of 28 single-family residential
building lots on 6.9 acres in an R-8(PD) zone for Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No. 5 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Approve
9. FP 04-010 Request for Final Plat approval of 28 single-family residential
building lots on 5.4 acres in an R-8 (PD) zone for Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No. 6 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Approve
10. FP 04-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 commercial building lots
on 4.15 acres in an L -O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No 2 by Jon
Barnes, Properties West, Inc. — south of East Ustick Road and west of
North Eagle Road: Approve
11. FP 04-012 Request for Final Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 5
common lots on 8.55 acres in an L -O zone for Cedar Springs
Subdivision No. 5 by Kevin Howell — south of McMillan Road and west of
North Meridian Road: Approve
12. Public Hearing: Idaho Community Development Block Grant —
Meridian Senior Citizen Center: Continue Public Hearing to March 2,
2004
13. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-018
Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G
zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eaav / Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest
corner and southeast comer of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
14. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-022
Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C -G zones for
Kissler (Deals Parcell by BRS Architects — southeast comer of East
Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
15. Public Hearing: VAR 04-001 Request for a Variance to ordinance MCC
11-9-1 height restrictions in a C -G zone for Silverstone Corporate
Center & Business Center by Sundance Investments — southeast corner
of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
16. Public Hearing: AZ 03-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.64
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge
Meridian City Council Agenda— February 24, 2004 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/orheanngs
Please contact the City park's office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting
Subdivision by Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road:
Continue Public Hearing to March 9, 2004 Meeting
17. Public Hearing: PP 03-041 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 266
single-family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 70.64 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by
Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road: Continue Public
Hearing to March 9, 2004 Meeting
18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-065 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development to allow single family residential and attached
single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge
Subdivision by Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road:
Continue Public Hearing to March 9, 2004 Meeting
19. Public Hearing: AZ 03-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing
Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC — 1295 West McMillan Road:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
20. Public Hearing: PP 03-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40
single-family building lots and 7 common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial
Point, LLC — 1295 West McMillan Road: Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size,
minimum house size and street side building setback in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 by Initial
Point, LLC — 1295 West McMillan Road: Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
22. Ordinance No. 04-1066 : AZ 03-026 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to C -G and I -L zones for Cortabitarte
Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte — south of East Fairview Avenue, and
west of North Eagle Road: Approve
23. Ordinance No. 04-1067 : AZ 03-034 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-0 zones for proposed
Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East
McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve
Meridien City Council Agenda— February 24, 2004 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting February 24 2004
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M.,
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree
and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Kenny Bowers,
Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the regular meeting for City Council. It's
Tuesday, February 24th. It's a little bit after 7:00. I'd like to welcome you all here. We
do have a few changes that are not reflected on the Council agenda. We do open with
the pledge and, then, an invocation. So, I apologize for them not being on your
agendas tonight, but that is how we open our regular city meeting. So, I would ask the
clerk to call roll attendance first.
De Weerd: Thank you. And if you will all stand. Please join me in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Thank you very much. We have Glen Olson with us tonight. He is the
stake president from the LDS church. If you will, please, join us and lead us in the
invocation.
Olson: Our Father in Heaven, we are very grateful to be able to be assembled here
together in this free country and this very choice city that we live in. We are grateful
that we can come together and discuss these important issues that will present
themselves today. We are thankful for those who serve on the City Council, the Mayor
and the support staff, and the department heads. We are grateful for the marvelous
service which they render to us as a people. We pray that we might appreciate the
very many blessing that thou hast given to us in living here in this great city. We pray
for those who make decisions tonight, for those who will present their positions and their
needs, that they might be able to express themselves properly as they would desire and
that the judgment and wisdom that is needed might be granted unto us as a people, that
those decisions might be made in the best interest of all those concerned. We, again,
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 2 of 88
give thee thanks for this blessing that we have to be here and to live here and to
prosper and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
De Weerd: President Olson, before you leave I would like to present you with a
Meridian pin and thank you for joining us.
Olson: That's my second.
De Weerd: Your second?
Olson: Yes.
De Weerd: Oh, well, then --
President: It took me ten years to get one. Thank you.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. Okay. We are on Item No. 2, adoption of the
agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Or Madam Mayor. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: That's all right.
Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. Any
discussion or changes? Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 3, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
033 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 3 of 88
Development — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder
Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 71 single-family
residential building lots and 7 common lots on 19.07 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by
Capital Development — north of West Ustick Road and east of North
Linder Road:
D. Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
for Approval: PFP 03-004 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 3.775 acres in a C -N zone for Cherry
Crossing Commercial Subdivision by Hawkins Companies —
northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road:
E. Ratify Adoption of Resolution No. 04-426 : Amendment to
the Collective Labor Agreement, between the City of Meridian
and Local #2311 International Association of Fire Fighters:
F. Resolution No. 04-427 : Park Fee Use 2004:
G. Resolution No. 04-428 Third Party Billing
Agreement Service Fee:
H. Three Party License Agreement with NMID — Eight Mile Lateral
Sewer Crossing:
I. Well #26 Test Well Lot Lease with Goldcreek Developers:
J. Well #26 Test Well Drilling Contract with Adamson:
K. Well #20 Pipina Pressure Zone Modifications Agreement —
Civil Survey:
L. Agreement with Meridian Youth Baseball:
M. Development Agreement: AZ 03-026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to C -G and I -L zones
for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte — south of East
Fairview Avenue, and west of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 4 of 88
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move -- we need to move Item L, the agreement with the Meridian Youth
Baseball, to 5-L and that's the only thing, I believe, we need to move off the consent
agenda. And with that I would move we approve the Consent Agenda and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with
the removal of L to five. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4: Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department — Brad Watson
1. Discussion of Water Division Space Analysis Study:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 4, Department Reports. We will begin with
Public Works. Brad Watson to discuss the Water Division Space Analysis Study.
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I did try to send you a
memo with some enclosures last Thursday. Do you have that in your packet? Okay.
It didn't make it into mine, then. I was just curious. There is quite a long dissertation I
wrote there about what we are doing with this Water Division Space Analysis Study. It
did happens that that day I did find out that you, Mayor, were planning on meeting with
Boise State regarding that space, so we can either postpone this discussion until after
you have that meeting or I can brief the full Council on what's going on or I can simply
answer any questions, whatever you wish.
De Weerd: Mr. Watson, I think let's put this on next week's agenda and -- because we
meet with the issue between now and then, I believe. I don't have my calendar in front
of me.
Wardle: One moment and I can -- I think you have that meeting scheduled for next
Wednesday, March 3rd.
De Weerd: Okay.
Watson: So two weeks?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 5 of 88
De Weerd: Would it be a problem for the water department if we delayed the discussion
until then?
Watson: I don't believe it would be a huge problem. The only reason that we stuck to
this timing was to -- if we came to some conclusions this spring, to get it into this budget
cycle, but I think we will still be okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, if you don't object, we will just go ahead and put that
on the second meeting in March, on March 9th, for discussion and possible action.
Okay. Okay. Is there any other reports?
Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
L. Agreement with Meridian Youth Baseball:
De Weerd: Okay. Hearing none, we have L removed from the Consent Agenda, so we
will ask Councilman Nary to -- for discussion on the agreement from Meridian Youth
Baseball.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I had reviewed that and I'm sure most of
you -- all of you have as well and I didn't have any objection to the agreement as
written. My only concern was I think there has been some discussion with Meridian
Youth Baseball about charging of admissions to some of the events that are going to be
on the site and I guess I had a couple of concerns about that. One of the concerns is
that under the Idaho Code we maintain some immunity -- liability immunity when we
don't charge admission for use on public facilities. And my other is more the
philosophical concern I have of charging people for use of public facilities. I recognize
that Meridian Youth Baseball is raising a lot of funds and is -- or paying a lot of money
for the improvements on the site, but the rest of the public is paying for the site and so
I'm concerned about not having some language in this agreement that there won't be
any admissions charged and if there are going to be admissions charged, that we would
have the opportunity to have that discussion prior to any event that would charge
admission, so that way if there is some need for indemnification, if we want to do that,
we have some flexibility to do that, but right now it's silent to it and I'm not sure if we
wanted to simply leave that open to a later discussion and so I wondered what the rest
of you thought about that.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess in talking to Mr. Strong and also Trace Layton, my
understanding is that it's a Meridian Youth Baseball tournament type of rule in that the
tournament team, then, takes -- the winning team takes that money as they move
forward to regionals and so the money that would be collected at the gate is not
something that that club would retain, it goes with the winning team to help defer costs
to move on in that process. But I think it's reasonable to me, if we address it on an
individual basis, but maybe Mr. Strong has some comment.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 6 of 88
Strong: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, to clarify this issue, what's been
discussed to this point is related to what the Mayor was just talking about. With the Cal
Ripken League to bring a state or regional tournament to Meridian, the requirements are
to be able to charge a fee to cover the costs of the tournament and, then, to pay for the
cost of winning teams to move on. It would be an annual tournament that Meridian
would compete to get in Meridian, that would include Oregon, Washington, and other
states. So, it would be a once -a -year event. There would not -- there would not be a
fee charged for regular or ongoing league play at the field, it would be for tournaments
that we would compete to get in Meridian.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just to address some of the comments that Councilman Nary
had -- and Doug had given me a call and we talked a little bit about it. They are looking
-- Meridian Youth Baseball is looking for potentially no more than once a year, but -- and
I'm not an attorney, so I'll ask this question. The tournament is sponsored by the
organization, so I -- and appreciate looking out for the city's interest and looking for
some kind of indemnification, but I think in this instance that would be something that is
probably very doable from the oversight national organization. It's probably standard
practice in other parks and I would ask maybe Mr. Layton if he would --
Strong: I think Mr. Layton would best address that.
De Weerd: Oh, he's probably lucky I didn't see him sitting out there.
Layton: Do I need to say who I am?
De Weerd: I need to swear you in. No, I don't. Would you, please, state your name.
Layton: Trace Layton, Meridian Youth Baseball. Yeah, for our tournaments, our regular
season, we do not charge any kind of a gate fee at all. Cal Ripken National, Babe Ruth
National, does -- we don't even set the gate fee, they tell every host tournament what
they are going to charge for a gate fee for a family pass and an individual pass and that
goes to cover umpires and -- for that tournament strictly and all that's left goes to the
team that wins state or regionals to move to the next level to help their family get there.
The host league does not get to keep any of that money.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that's only at regional. State you don't have that, because --
Layton: Yes. State we have to charge -- you got in free last year, because you were
special.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 7 of 88
Bird: You weren't charging anybody, were you?
Layton: Yeah.
Bird: Oh, were you?
Layton: Yeah.
Bird: Sorry. I didn't -- I didn't believe that -- I didn't know you was charging last year. I
thought that at the state level you didn't --
Layton: Yeah. State --
Bird: It isn't something that the city -- it isn't something that the city hasn't been doing
on city property already. As everybody knows, the American Legion Baseball field up
there, which was put in by American -- Meridian Athletic round table monies, with no
city money at all -- charges for their game. We have to at the legion level and for the
high school level. I'm like Mr. Nary, on the regular basis of inter -league deal, I don't
like to be charged -- or see charges, but I know when you have your special, your state
and regional or national tournaments, that you have to charge on that, because of the
organization. But it isn't -- it is something that has been done in the city at the
American Legion baseball field since 1981 or'82 when we developed that field.
Layton: Another point that -- we, actually, as a league, have to pay Cal Ripken National
if we are awarded regionals or the world series, we have to pay Cal Ripken National out
of our -- our league has to pay them a set fee in order to host it. That takes care of --
that money actually helps get some of the other teams here, too, and also pays for
advertising and whatnot and getting the officials here and stuff and if we have to -- in
order for us, if we are not allowed to charge gate fees, first of all we'd probably take the
risk of not even being awarded regionals, but if we were, by chance, I'm sure they state,
well, we usually collect this many hundreds of thousands of dollars off the gate, you're
going to have to pay us that, so that would be more money that would come out of our
league and as a league, being nonprofit and trying to keep the fees as low as we can
and scholarshipping as many kids as we do, we wouldn't even be able to probably do
that. You don't make any money off these regional tournaments. The best thing about
it is as a league point -- standpoint is your kids aren't traveling, it gives you the benefit of
your kids are sleeping in their own bed, they usually play better, and, as a community, it
brings in a ton of money. When we hosted state last year, I know that both the
Microtel, the Best Western, and the Sandman were all three completely full with parents
and players from the other teams afthe state.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 8 of 88
Nary: I guess so everyone understands, I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it's a
policy decision of this Council to decide to charge a fee for any use of a public facility,
regardless of what it is. I recognize that at the legion field we have done that and I'm
assuming that somebody 20 years ago made a policy choice to do it that way and that's
okay. That's my only point, was to do that. But, secondly, if we are going to make that
decision, I don't want the city to get sued, because we have waived that recreational
immunity to allow someone to charge on our public facility. Therefore, someone needs
to indemnify the city, so when someone -- if someone gets injured, whether it's Cal
Ripken, whether it's Meridian Youth Baseball, whether it's the city decides to take that
risk, that's all I'm saying, it's not in the agreement. I'd like it to be in the agreement as
to what those decisions are and who is responsible for them when we have it. It doesn't
bother me to have it, I just want it in the agreement, so that way we don't always have to
re -invent that five years from now or ten years from now, this is a 25 year agreement, I'd
just like it to say what those -- what those rules are. And, again, whether it's the city
that's going to take that risk, whether it's partnering with Meridian Youth Baseball, or Cal
Ripken or whoever it if we are going to make -- if we are going to allow people to be
charged a fee for basically using a public facility, we should contemplate that in the
agreement. That's all I was wanting.
Layton: One thing I might suggest, maybe -- I'm not an attorney, but possible verbiage
on that is that if it's written in there, if something about that it is acceptable, or whatever
the word is, to host from a state tournament level up, to regionals to world series, that,
then -- because that's the only time we would be doing it as our organization. You
know, we are willing to sign that, so --
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, if I may. Councilman Nary, with regard to the indemnification
issue, in paragraph five -- it starts on page four of the agreement. There are provisions
with regard to indemnity and that includes a provision that Meridian Youth Baseball
carry the insurance, which includes the city as an additional named insured, which
would assist with the concern that you have raised of waiver of recreational immunity
and, then, from what Mr. Layton said, clarifying, we could include a provision in the
agreement that simply says there would be no gate charges for activities hosted by
Meridian Youth Baseball facility, except for state or regional tournaments upon notice to
the city, something that -- we can come up with some language that would address that,
if that's your pleasure.
Nary: That would be great.
Bird: Is that okay?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 9 of 88
Nary: Yeah. I think that would be great. At least that it's clear to everybody that the
facility is a public facility, but there are certain events that we have made a conscious
decision to charge for and cover that risk. I think that's fine.
Bird: So, you're willing to go for a motion to accept this agreement with those changes?
Nary: We can either do it tonight or make the changes for next week and --
Bird: I think they'd like to get on, because they got fundraising to attend to.
Nary: That's fine.
De Weerd: Was there anything else that you needed to address?
Layton: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we enter into the agreement with Meridian Youth Baseball, Inc.
The agreement dated February 24th, 2004, and to work out some new wording under
the indemnification section five agreeable to both Meridian Youth Baseball and the city
and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Nary: Second.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, if you could just give the flexibility to put the
paragraph perhaps where it may be more appropriate in the agreement. It may be
under conditions of use or somewhere.
Bird: That's fine with me. Where ever you want to put it.
Nary: I concur.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The motion is to approve Item 5-L, agreement with
Meridian Youth Baseball. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 10 of 88
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Tabled from February 17, 2004: FP 04-008 Request for Final Plat
approval of 56 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on
17.8 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 9 by
Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and south of West
Chinden Road:
Item 7: Tabled from February 17, 2004: FP 04-007 Request for Final Plat
approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on
11.96 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 10 by
Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and south of West
Chinden Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6 was tabled from February 17th, 2004, FP 04-
008, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 9. I'll start with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, they have again requested deferral for
one week, I believe. So, I -- sorry we didn't get that information to you in time to
change the agenda.
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: That would apply to the next item as well.
De Weerd: Okay. So, you will need to table Items 6 and 7 to March 2nd; is that --
Powell: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we table FP 04-008 and FP 04-007 to March 2nd, 2004.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the tabled Items 6 and 7
to March 2nd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: FP 04-005 Request for Final Plat approval of 28 single-family residential
building lots on 6.9 acres in an R-8(PD) zone for Quenzer Commons
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 11 of 88
Subdivision No. 5 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Item No. 8, FP 04-005 for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 5. Anna.
Powell: Madam President -- dang it. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
De Weerd: It will happen. I have faith.
Powell: Two for two tonight. This is phase five of Quenzer Subdivision. The area is
shown in the circle there. It is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary
plat. I don't believe that the applicant has expressed any concerns with the conditions
of approval. So, with that I will end staffs presentation. There is the final plat. I'm
sorry. There you go.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any questions for staff? Is the applicant in agreement with
the staff report? Okay. If you don't have any further comments, we will just leave it at
that. Thank you. The applicant is in agreement with staff comments. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 04-005, the final plat for Quenzer
Commons Subdivision No. 5.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 8, FP 04-005.
Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: FP 04-010 Request for Final Plat approval of 28 single-family residential
building lots on 5.4 acres in an R-8 (PD) zone for Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No. 6 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is FP 04-010, Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 6.
Powell: Madam Mayor, once again, we have a very clean final plat as shown in the
circled area. There is the final plat for you. It is in substantial compliance with the
approve preliminary plat and to my knowledge the applicant is in agreement -- and he is
nodding his head -- with the conditions of approval and the staff report.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 12 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate the applicants when they turn in a final plat that
matches their preliminary plat. Any questions or comments from Council? Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De. Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 04-010, final plat approval for Quenzer
Commons Subdivision No. 6.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-010, Item No. 9.
Any discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: FP 04-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 commercial building lots
on 4.15 acres in an L -O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Jon
Barnes, Properties West, Inc. — south of East Ustick Road and west of
North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10 is FP 04-011, Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. Anna.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a partial submittal of the total
area that was replatted in the Stokesberry Subdivision. Those are the lots as shown for
the preliminary plat and those are the lots as shown for the final plat. They are in
substantial compliance. Just so you remember what this looks like -- oh, there was
supposed to be a site plan. Oh, didn't make it in. Sorry. The proposed final plat is in
substantial compliance with the preliminary plat for this commercial project and the
applicant's representative, Mr. Daren Fluke from JUB, sent an e-mail saying that he
was in agreement with the conditions of approval on this project.
De Weerd: Okay. Any comments? Questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 13 of 88
Bird: I move that we approve FP 04-011, Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2, final plat, and
for the attorney to draw up the appropriate papers.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 10, FP 04-011 on
Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: FP 04-012 Request for Final Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 5
common lots on 8.55 acres in an L -O zone for Cedar Springs
Subdivision No. 5 by Kevin Howell — south of McMillan Road and west
of North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 11 is FP 04-012, for Cedar Springs Subdivision No.
5.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cedar Springs North
preliminary plat. The area of the final plat is there at the corner. It's for 12 commercial
lots and five common lots. The final plat is in substantial conformance with the
approved preliminary plat and, again, the applicant's representative Daren Fluke has
sent an e-mail stating he is in agreement with the conditions of approval. I do need to
note for the record that there are some -- two mistakes on the staff report. The
references to Ustick should be to McMillan Road. That's our fault, not his.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 11, FP 04-012, final plat for Cedar Springs No. 5
and to incorporate all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 11, FP 04-
012. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 14 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We are now at the Public Hearing part of our agenda. I
just want to explain the process for you that are new to this. We do ask, by ordinance,
that we swear in anyone that is going to offer public testimony. So, we will do it all at
one time, so if you are going to testify, if will, please, raise your right hand. Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God.
(Affirmative answers.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: Idaho Community Development Block Grant —
Meridian Senior Citizen Center:
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Okay. Also, begin our public hearing process first
with staff comments and, then, the applicant typically gets up and the applicant is given
15 minutes to introduce the project. Public testimony are three minutes in length and,
then, the applicant has a chance to respond to that public testimony. So, I will go
ahead and open up Item No. 12, our Public Hearing for the Idaho Community
Development Block Grant for our Meridian Senior Center and I don't know who is going
to kick us off. Pat Ingle. Pat, if you will, please, state your name and address and spell
your last name.
Ingle: Work address or my address?
De Weerd: Work address is fine.
Ingle: My name is Pat Ingle, I'm with Sage Community Resources, and I'm here to
assist the city and the seniors in this application. Our address is Executive Drive.
De Weerd: Either one is fine.
Ingle: 10003 Barnsdale in Boise, Idaho. What we are here tonight is to give the public
an opportunity to comment on the application that the city is submitting on behalf of the
Meridian Seniors, to help them rehabilitate the senior center. 1 do have handouts on
the back table and I believe the Council has that, in addition to a copy of the draft
application. And we have the architect here and representatives from the senior
organization to answer any questions and the architect will present some details. So, I
need to highlight the program and get that into the hearing record and the general
project description. The purpose of public hearing is to allow the citizens of Meridian to
have input into the development of the Idaho Department of Commerce community
development block grant application in accordance with Meridian citizen participation
plan. The program is a community development block grant program, fondly referred to
as CDBG, was enacted by the Community Development Act of '74, which authorized
Housing and Urban Development to operate the program. This is a federal program
that distributes funds to Idaho cities directly through the Idaho Department of
Commerce. Only cities and counties are eligible applicants to the program. Therefore,
the Meridian seniors could not apply directly, they need to work through their local
jurisdiction. Grant dollars available to the state of Idaho this year are approximately
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 15 of 88
600,000 dollars for senior and community center improvements. The application
deadline this year is March 5th, so it's approaching quickly. The application handbook
is available for review, as well as on the Department of Commerce website. Generally,
this project is -- will upgrade the Meridian Senior Center with accessible restrooms.
Currently the building does not have handicapped accessible restrooms, hopefully,
replace the roof, which has been patched many times over the years, and correct health
and safety issues, including other accessibility issues throughout the building. Subject
to available dollars, the project consists of about eight priorities which are listed on the
handout and are individually costed out on the back side of the handout and these are
in order of priority that the seniors have worked up with the architect, based on trying to
meet as many of the code requirements as possible. So, the restrooms are the first
priority. The second priority is to deal with some issues in the kitchen. Currently the
kitchen ceiling has open grate plastic over the lighting, which is over the food
preparation area, which does not meet health and safety Codes for that. The other
issue is exhaust ventilation in the kitchen. Rather than a new HVAC system, the
architects have worked out a way to add exhaust to draw out the heat, which sometimes
is 107 degrees in the kitchen for the people preparing meals. They prepare over 400
meals a day in the kitchen, too. Priority three is to add an accessible exit from the
dining area. This is a new exit, because currently the exit exits the building into a
narrow graveled area and by code it needs to be moved to another side of the building.
Priority four is to modify the existing west exit from the dining area, because it's not
accessible, it's -- I believe it's three steep steps into there. Priority five is replace the
leaky roof and, hopefully, that's -- one section has three layers of shingles now. That's
why we need to look at replacing the roof. This particular priority is not anticipated to
be funded with community development block grant dollars, it will be funded separately
with money that the city and the seniors have set aside for the roof project to match a
foundation grant, which the seniors are pursuing with rural conservation and
development for 15,000. But it is still part of the improvement project. Priority six we
are hoping to have enough money to lengthen one of the ramps in the building that
connects the dining area with the recreational area. It is a ramp now, it does have
handrails on one side, but the codes have changed and so the rise on the ramp does
not meet current codes, but it's not just a simple fix, so it means moving doorways if you
change that. So, it's on the priority or list. Number seven is on the back page and,
again, the codes now require different ramping requirements than the seniors now have
at the front door and the ramp coming off of the computer board room area. Even
though there are ramps and rails, again, the rise and some of the issues are not up to
current code. And priority eight is currently unfunded, but it is -- they do have an
improvement program which the architect will go through, so that they have cost
estimates, they have preliminary drawings, and they know what they are up against as
far as raising money to do all of their improvements and this is for the garage. We
aren't able to have enough funds in this particular project to help them build a garage,
but we have a cost estimate and that's around 25,000 dollars, 25 to 30 thousand dollars.
So, the cost estimates are broken down here. Currently we have a project cost
estimate of 195,700 dollars, 100,000 of that we are applying with this application to the
Department of Commerce for block grant dollars. The construction portion of that
money is about 141,000 for those eight priorities that we talked about. The sources of
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 16 of 88
the funding are broken out on the handout as well. The block grant is 100,000. The
Meridian seniors have cash in the amount of 35,805 and that amount includes some
cash expenditures they have already made to some of the improvements that are part
of this project. The Meridian seniors have put in 360 dollars of in-kind work when they
dealt with some fire safety issues in the dining room. The City of Meridian's in-kind --
the large amount there is your audit and that's part -- you always have to have an audit
as part of the block grant and so you get to take credit as match for whatever your
regular audit costs are and I got that from Stacy. The six hundred dollars are an
estimate at this point, in the hopes of there might be some fee compensation for the
project. That really helps out the project and some -- most cities are able to help in that
way. So, that figure might change slightly. Private in-kind is, again, some donation of
time from Sage and donation from other seniors and -- on previous projects and, thus,
the total of 195,700. What we ask tonight is if the Council members and anybody who
would like to, review the draft application, you have a draft application in the clip, and
behind that is a separate stapled document which is, actually, the Meridian senior's
capital improvement program that they now have. And that outlines a item cost for
each priority and a drawing. This hearing does need to remain open for five days and I
will leave with the city clerk a copy of the application manual, a copy of the draft
application, my card, and I encourage anybody who does have comments to put them in
writing during the next five days and get them to me. The mailing and fax information is
there. And at this time I believe the architect has some detailed information, so that the
Council can understand exactly what we are doing.
De Weerd: Thank you, Pat.
Nielsen: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Thank you, again, for
the city to be -- for being a sponsor for the Meridian Senior Citizens Center.
De Weerd: Roger, if you will, please, state your name and address.
Nielsen: My name is Roger Nielsen with Johnson Architects. My name is spelled N -i-
e -I -s -e -n.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nielsen: And, again, thank you for being a sponsor to the Meridian Senior Citizens
Center and we appreciate that very much. We have been working very hard with Ken
Altig and Jerry Knox with the Meridian Senior Citizens Center. They have done a good
job prioritizing the items that they need to have corrected there at the Senior Citizens
Center and, hopefully, the grant will be funded. If Anna could put in that disk, I will
quickly show -- Pat has done a good job explaining what the different priorities are and
what I'd like to do is just quickly go through those items for you and show you where
they are at at the senior center and how they impact the total facility there. I know you
have a handout there that has those in there and for purposes of the public I'd just
quickly like to briefly go through those. Okay. Again, we'd like to encourage written
public comments for this project from the public. Next. Okay. Here we have the
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 17 of 88
existing plan. Right in here is the toilet rooms right now that do not comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and that is -- and we also have this exit here, which you
see this long kind of a courtyard here, in reality, this dining room right here has an exit
here and one here, but -- and they seem to be remote, except for the fact that you're
really exiting the building at this point, because this is, really, too close to the other wing
here. So, they have remote exits and we really need to put an exit over here on the
other side of the dining hall. And, then, of course, these exits here, which are kind of a
main entrance and exit from the rec room area here is not ADA accessible and some of
the existing ramps that are located up here at the front of the building are not ADA
accessible as well. Next. Okay. This is the toilet remodel. As you can see, we will
be putting in our ADA clearances there and it doesn't really increase the number of toilet
fixtures, however, it does provide all the code -related elements as far as clearances
next to these water closets and plumbing fixtures without the door swings there. Okay.
Next. And I'm just going to kind of go through -- passed these estimate sheets here
real quickly. Those are broken down in the handout sheet that is available there for
public scrutiny there, so -- we will just kind of go passed those in a hurry here. Okay.
Next. This is the kitchen remodel. Right now it's got this layered ceiling that's open
grid, it's not cleanable, we need to put in a whole new ceiling here that's scrubable and
cleanable, as well as new light fixtures that are health department approved. Next.
Okay. That's the estimate for the kitchen. Next. Okay. This -- again, this is where I
was talking about the entrance and exits out of the dining area, so next. And that's the
estimate for that work right there. Okay. This is the -- kind of the main entrance and
exit to the rec area. It needs to have an ADA ramp and landings on the outside of the
door there. We would be working with the Ada County Highway District for the license
agreements for these ramps. The right of way currently is right along this building wall
right here, really, these ramps would be built into the public right of way. Next. Okay.
That's the estimate for that work. Okay. This is the roof. Again, there is like three
layers of shingles in some of these areas and we really need to get the roof repaired, so
that we don't have water leaking in the facility. There is really quite a problem with
mold these days and we don't want to end up with that type of problem there at the
facility. Next. Okay. There is the estimate we have for the roof. Again, these are all
based on Davis Bacon wages and also contingencies built into these figures, because
of the fact that it is a federally -- partially so. Again, here -- this interior ramp that
comes from the rec room down into the dining hallway here, currently it's about three
feet long and with the Americans with Disabilities Act it would have to be much longer,
but I think the floor finish is about seven and a half inches between the two levels there.
And these doors would have to be worked out between the mechanical room and the
dining room, so this little bit of remodeling that has to go on with that to make that ramp
comply and get the proper handrails there. Okay. Next. And that's the amount of the
cost for that work there. These are the front ramps. Currently they are working fine,
people are getting in and out of these. This is currently a ramp here that comes down
off of the board room area and this is the ramp off the front entrance. However, there is
no level landing outside of this door here and the handrails currently do not comply.
The reason why this was put down on priority seven is because of the fact that it is
usable, they have been using it, it just doesn't comply with the letter of the law right now,
so that is why it's been moved down on the priority list. Next. And that's the cost for
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 18 of 88
those ramps there. And, again, this is the garage addition. Currently, they have a bus,
it does not fit in the current garage, they would need a garage addition that's much
taller, much wider door to house the bus and one of the things we'd like to do is
whenever there is funding reuse some of these doors -- we may have to go to a
variance to allow this garage to be built a little bit closer to the line and still be able to
get the bus in there, but those things are down the road a bit. Again, the garage --
currently it appears that there is not enough funding for the garage at this point in time.
So, anyway, thank you again and appreciate Council and Mayor's time. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Roger. Is there any questions for the architect? Okay. Is
there testimony that the public would like to offer? Is there anyone from the senior
center who would like to offer testimony? Gee, I know you're such a public speaker.
Altig: Yes, I am.
De Weerd: Could you state your name?
Altig: I'm Ken Altig and I am chairman in charge of applying for the grants for this project
and the project is at 133 West Broadway, the Senior Center, and we appreciate the help
we have gotten from the city, the City Council, and the Mayor and we have a lot of
response from different businesses and individuals in the community, we have a stack
of letters of appreciation from them and recommendations for the grant and we are
open to any questions or any comments that people have about the facility. It is for
seniors, people over 60 years of age, primarily. We do have a lot of other people that
use the building and a lot of different organizations and agencies that do come into the
building at different times and use it and so we just want to bring the building up to
standards and to do some necessary repairs, such as the roof, and to bring it up to
standards for codes and the ADA. And this is primarily what we are after and we're just
seeking funds to do it. And thank you.
De Weerd: Well, Ken, I just appreciate the roll you have played in this. I know you have
put in a tremendous amount of time and energy and I'm really pleased to hear that you
are getting community support. The senior center has been self-reliant for a very many
years -- actually, decades, and they like that independent status and we appreciate that.
Certainly, the city wants to be a partner in this and if you have been down to the senior
center, there certainly is need and the community -- I'm glad to see they are responding
and being a partner with you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to
offer testimony in this Public Hearing?
Nielsen: I would just like to offer one more thing. Currently, the existing senior center is
about 9,800 square feet and with the amount of money that is planned to be spent for
this project if the application is approved, would be about 10.25 a square foot, which is
way less than the cost of new construction, which is way over 108 dollars a square foot
for a facility that is similar in size to this. So, it is really a good bargain and it solves
many of the life safety issues and it would be well worth it for this facility, so --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 19 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you, Roger. And in case you didn't catch that, they do serve over 400
meals a day out of their kitchen. They do offer -- the city does help support the van
service, but you do offer a very quality service to our residents and we appreciate what
you do.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I just had a question and I'm not -- and maybe its my own ignorance of the
process for the grants, but I was just curious as to what the reason to have the priority
eight, the garage modification, since there isn't adequate funding to meet that need and
it isn't really being asked to even be funded in this grant. I'm not sure why it's in there.
De Weerd: I believe that the board wanted to show how much need there really is in the
senior center and the project and --
Ingle: That's pretty much it. And the reason -- the way this block grant program works,
these are best guesstimates, you build in a contingency and you try and assume Davis
Bacon wage rates for the project, but if we put them in order of priority, if something
wonderful happened, prices go way down, you could do -- add alternates in your bid
and maybe still get to do that, but if I don't show that as part of the program, then, you
can't have that option. So, honestly, we know for sure, even with some price increases,
you could go down through the roof, priority five, with the foundation funding, but if
prices go ski rocketing like they did on some of the other projects this year, we might not
be able to do priority six, seven, and eight. So, we will bid those as alternates and even
the garage, if there is an economy that suggests that's a reasonable option.
Nary: And I know this is part of the Public Hearing. I did have some, I guess,
suggestions on the letter from the Mayor. There was some --
Ingle: Oh, that letter is just a draft.
Nary: Well, I -- so I have some suggestions for the draft. Should I give it to the clerk?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Okay.
Ingle: It's just -- shows some ideas of what to include.
Nary: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Pat. Okay. Is there anything else, Council? Okay. I would
entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 20 of 88
Bird: No. No.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. So, we need to continue the Public Hearing until our next
meeting?
Bird: Yeah.
Ingle: Actually, the way that the hearing handout is stated is the hearing stays open until
March 2nd and if written comments are received between now and March 2nd, then, the
city clerk collects those and transmit them to Sage.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do we need a motion on that or just -- she can continue it herself.
De Weerd: Continue the Public Hearing. And by continuing the Public Hearing, we will
open it -- it will be open for public comment by letter or testimony at our next meeting
before it is, then, closed. Okay. Mr. Bird, do you have a motion to continue this item?
Bird: So moved. Item No 12, Public Hearing for the Idaho Community Development
Block Grant, Meridian Senior Center, stay open until March 2nd, 2004.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 12, Public Hearings
for the Meridian Senior Center to March 2nd, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-018
Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G
zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy 1 Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest
corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is a continued Public Hearing from November 5th, 2003. On
AZ 03-018, Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe, and we will open with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this did come before you in November,
as you stated, and I will try and summarize some of the issues. Just clarifying the
persons involved is probably the first appropriate step. As the application submittal
reads, it includes four owners, Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe. Ruwe has this part at the
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 21 of 88
center and at your last hearing you may recall that there was some not unified thoughts
on what would occur on this property and I think part of that was Mr. Ruwe -- or Mr.
and Mrs. Ruwe --
Nichols: I believe that's the Eagy parcel.
Powell: Have I got it wrong? Eagy. Ruwe's down here, then. I'm sorry. Thank you. So,
Eagy is not a part of this anymore. So, the annexation path will come through Carol
Subdivision, cross over Eagle Road and, then, come back to the Cobbs property. So, it
goes through Ruwe, over to the Kissler, and back to the Cobbs. And that was part of
the reason we continued the Public Hearing was we wanted to get a new legal
description. Two was to get a concept plan on the development of the property. Three
to renotice. And, then, there was one other item. You can't see it, but there was a tiny -
- well, not tiny -- there is a 60 foot strip of land in here that was kind of a surveying no
man's land. What they have done is they have gone through, Ada County Development
Services, and they have reapportioned that 60 foot strip of no man's land to the
adjoining property owners. So, Ruwe picked up a portion of it and, then, Eagy picked
up the remainder over here. They have completed all that work through Ada county and
that has been a large part of the wait in this application or the delay. As you may recall,
we are not looking at a development plan specifically, because that was not part of the
application. This is just an annexation request. There was quite a bit of discussion
about a concept plan and the owners -- you had a brief recess, the owners went out in
the lobby and they said that they would come forward with a concept plan and this is the
concept plan. There is kind of a transitional use. This is the residential in Carol sub.
This is kind of a transitional use at this location. Multi -family combination of retail office
in this location. The Kissler property would be primarily commercial, with a buffer of
office at the south, some sort of transitional use or a buffer and, actually, this application
is your next application. I'm going to include it in the concept plan discussion right now,
because it's part of the concept plan. And, then, again, some commercial office use
along Ustick Road. And this HI is kind of the high intensity commercial, which would
move from the Kissler in this corner over to the Cobbs on this. So, they have come up
with a concept plan with kind of the basic uses that they are proposing and, then, these
share the basic access points and their relationship of these properties to the
surrounding owners. Again, it was because Eagy dropped out. It was important to
understand how these properties were all going to relate to one another throughout
here. The development agreement does include quite a bit of discussion about the
Comprehensive Plan for this area, which is mixed use, it's not straight commercial, and
that is why you see the concept plan that has a mix of uses. Those Comp Plan policies,
they cover a wide range of transportation issues, as well as what would the appropriate
mix be given that Eagle Road is a state highway, that it's likely to attract a large amount
of users and specific references to those for some residential in this to kind of support
transit on Eagle Road. With that I think I'll end staffs presentation, other than the basic
issue was from staffs perspective it's not a matter of whether or not it meets the
findings, it's more of a question of the city policy, and so it's really before the Mayor and
Council as to whether this level of concept plan is sufficient for you to feel comfortable in
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 22 of 88
the annexation of the property, along with the provisions we have tried to include in the
development agreement.
De Weerd: I guess, Anna, I would have a question as to with the discussions going on
right now about the Eagle corridor, what kind of feedback or input have we had from ITD
on this?
Powell: Well, given that there is so many property owners, I believe that they all have --
ITT so far -- ITD so far has been pretty good about allowing each individual property
owner at least one access point and I think as you see on the Ruwe and the Cobbs
property, they are just proposing one access each off of Eagle Road. Now, the Kissler
property does have two coming off of Eagle Road and I, unfortunately, did not attend
the Eagle Road discussions. Brad Hawkins -Clark did not mention anything specific in
relationship to this property to me. So, I'm not aware of their being an issue with regard
to the access points. Perhaps the applicant's representative might have an update on
that.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here?
If you will, please, state your name and address and you were sworn in; correct? You
weren't here. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Strite: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Strite: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise,
Idaho. I'm here, once again, in behalf of the Kissler, Ruwe, Cobbs group, in support of
this application. Also here tonight is Mrs. Ruwe and also Eric Davis, who represents Mr.
Kissler on the east side of Eagle Road. As the staff has aptly noted, we finally got the
parcel line adjustment completed yesterday, February 23rd, so I think Mr. Nichols was
absolutely correct in his assumption that it may take more than the original assessment
of 30 days. Having said that, this parcel is now contiguous with the city and we do meet
all the criteria for annexation, as Anna has already noted, and, certainly, we have
garnered support from both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, so
unless otherwise requested, I will limit my comments to condition number three, which,
in fact, was the concept plan. I think what we have attempted to do here is identify what
type of uses in a broad sense could be used at this corner, what the size of those
parcels may be in terms of acreages, we have addressed what the access criteria might
be, not only internally, but externally, and, most importantly, I think we have addressed
the transitional yard or uses to further protect any negative impacts, if you will, from
adjacent neighborhoods. With respect to the comments relative to ITD, I did, in fact, sit
down with ITD and, as staff has noted, each one of those property owners have actually
deeded accesses. In the case of Mr. Kissler, he has two deeded accesses. Mr. Ruwe
has two deeded accesses. Mr. Eagy has one deeded access. Mr. Cobbs has two
deeded accesses. So, what, essentially, you could have there is we have
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 23 of 88
approximately six deeded accesses on the west side, two deeded accesses on the east
side. Our plan, in effect -- and certainly it's going to be totally up to what the decision of
ITD will be, but our plan here conceptually is combine these access points, so that we
are able to limit the amount of access to Eagle Road and at the same time we have
attempted to locate them in approximately the same areas as the deed accesses, as far
as we could find on the deeds were located. Those access points, as you might notice,
are from the southerly point of the Eagy parcel onto Kissler and at the southerly tip of
the Cobbs parcel to the Kissler parcel. Internally, at this particular point in time, since
we no longer have Mr. Eagy as part of our group in the annexation process, we have
stated, as you will see there, that these are conceptual access points, the idea being
until such time as we have another player, we are not going to be able to agree --
certainly we would agree, but we are not going to be able to force access onto those
parcels which are not a part. That also includes the southerly parcel, 50 acres to the
south, but it is our hopes that it ultimately, with a plan such as you see before you, that
the accesses can be agreed to in the long term and, basically, as plans come before
you, hopefully not in a piecemeal format, but in a concerted effort to be cohesive, that
each one of these access points, not necessarily in that exact location, will allow cross -
access from parcel to parcel and at the same time limit the amount of access points that
we are going to get onto Eagle Road. As far as Ada County Highway District, we
presently have three access points delineated there, all three of which meets their
existing policy manual. The two to the east are all access movements, the one to the
west is also full access movement. So, having said that, I think the thing that I would
like to speak to next is the development agreement. Certainly we have no opposition to
the development agreement. 1, quite frankly, think it's a little duplicative, as I have
stated before, because we have all agreed that we are going to come back on any and
all uses as conditional use on any and all parcels in the annexation. As the staff has
requested, the development agreement solely addresses the westerly side, so the
easterly side is not part of the development agreement, but I think that I would suggest
and I would ask for your consideration that in making a motion, maybe condition number
three might limit the development agreement, if, in fact, you are agreeable to this level
of concept development. That the development plan, as limited to the westerly side,
also be limited in its scope, such that maybe only uses are defined and any reference to
future conditional uses could be by virtue of this concept plan. And with that I would
open it up for questions. I think we have been through this more than I'm sure you'd like
and you have heard this discussion before, with the exception of Councilman Wardle,
more than once, so I would open it for questions and perhaps we can get the
conversation started.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: I have no questions.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 24 of 88
Nary: Mr. Strite, I recognize this is just a concept plan, but I guess part of the reason we
asked for it or -- and wanted to see something like that was to at least get a flavor of
what we are looking at and if I understood what Mrs. Powell said, its the entire site, both
sides of the road are mixed use zones; is that right?
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that's correct.
Nary: Okay. And so the intent on the east side is that office space on the southern
portion and the portion along Ustick having basically commercial and office, is where
the mix of the use is going to come from, because it appears it would be one large site
of commercial there.
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that's correct. It also ties into the -- we are
attempting to get an agreement with that parcel to the south that's been recently
annexed, which, in effect, is residential on the east side and the frontage property, I
believe, was deemed commercial, but the rear of that property was deemed residential.
Hence, we are attempting to suggest that not only can you access the commercial, the
office orientation, but you can also access the residential sector that is on the east side
of that parcel to the south.
Nary: Isn't that Redfeather?
Strite: That's correct.
Nary: Okay. We, actually, turned that down. We have reset it to hearing again, but we
haven't approved it.
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, I still think the concept is valid
Nary: Okay.
Strite: In other words, relative to your question as to mixed use, I think that does add in
the mix the nature of the staffs request, if -- I think the -- I think the Comprehensive Plan
states if it's appropriate residential use shall be encouraged. Well, in this we have
residential use potentially, as does the parcel to the northwest. That is recently. I think
that's Stonehenge or Stonebridge or one of those that also has residential to it. So, I
think that the mix is there in concept and that's what we are trying to provide here.
Nary: Just to follow up, too, I guess, Mr. Strite, I'm a little concerned with high intensity
uses on a corner, just because of access issues that we seem to see all the time. I'm
not sure that it's really something that's a major need to address for an annexation
application. You said those are just conceptual ideas as to the access points across
Eagle Road. I guess I have a concern in having cross -access all the way across a 55
mile an hour highway as people trying to cross all the way across Eagle, rather than
having offset entrances on both sides.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 25 of 88
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, if I might, I don't think that you're going to find
that cross -access is going to be available east to west. I think a good point in hand is
the recent Krispy Kreme approval where a divider was put in there and had right -in,
right -out only. We are anticipating that. However, in sitting down with ITD and sitting
down with Ada County Highway District, it was their preference that we at least
attempted to align these based on the existing deeds that we could run on down and,
quite frankly, the ones I could find were primarily associated with the Kissler property,
so I aligned those and one of them actually lines up quite closely to Mrs. Ruwe's
property. But that was at the suggestion of ITD.
Nary: And the last thing I have is -- and I don't know that you really have an answer for
it, but I know we have frowned in general upon annexations that create enclaves and
although I know you may not -- I don't know that you have a better answer for it, but
certainly this is creating that enclave of that middle parcel and I don't know that there is
a better answer to it, but I know we have frowned upon it. I didn't know if you had a
comment about it.
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, I could have a lot of comments, but I think they
probably would not be suited here. It's unfortunate that Mr. Eagy is not a part, because
I think that the whole thing fell together quite well, but I can understand his position. I
think at the time he was -- as you recall he testified and I think you and Councilman Bird
made some excellent points. He was concerned over the detail of the concept plan. He
wants to have total flexibility. What I tried to explain to him -- and I think, quite frankly,
if, in fact, this concept plan is adopted by this Council, becomes part of the development
agreement for that west side, there is going to be some situations where he has, in fact,
found himself in a position of being limited. Not to a great deal, but I think it's obvious
and I think it's quite probable that he's going to come back now and say, geez, you
know, maybe I should have been a part of this, because I would have an opportunity to
maybe reassess how these accesses points go. That's not to say that's not going to
happen, because each -- and I know you're getting tired of hearing this, but each and
every use is coming back here as a conditional use. The neighbors have the
opportunity, the Council has the opportunity, the staff, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and Mr. Eagy will have an opportunity to address those. It's unfortunate
and I thought, quite frankly -- and I will suggest to you before tonight that it won't happen
again, I thought perhaps if I could put all these people together and come in one
concerted effort that it would be of benefit to all and, obviously, I was mistaken.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 26 of 88
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to issue testimony on this item? Sir.
Had you raised your right hand --
Eagy: No, I have not.
De Weerd: Okay.
Eagy: My name is Greg Eagy, as Mr. Strite was just talking about.
De Weerd: Okay. Were you sworn in with the group?
Eagy: No, I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Eagy: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Eagy: Okay. My name is Greg Eagy and I own the property at 3055 North Eagle Road.
I just wanted to address, after listening to Mr. Strite, the reason that I dropped out of this
to begin with was that I was asked to be brought into this to help the contiguous person
in the annexation for Mr. Kissler across the road, not realizing that there was going to be
a situation here where we had to show roads and dividing up the property and showing
future planning for the property, et cetera. Maybe I wasn't bright enough to know that
that's what happened and it went this far. So, I apologize if I caused Mr. Strite any grief
for dropping out of it, but, at the same time, I mean you're looking at our property that's
two parcels, three parcels right there that are out of this -- I mean we got one, two,
three, four access points that are going through the middle our parcel and I ask you
where do we put a building or where do we put our property if that's shown for future
that that's four different access points coming through that little piece of property. Okay.
And all I'm saying is I would ask that the Council doesn't put definitive access points at
this point in time that are hard and gospel, that are four of them, so that's the only
testimony I would give.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Eagy. Sir? Please -- I have already sworn you in;
correct?
Grant: A couple times.
De Weerd: A couple of times? That's pretty good.
Grant: From previous -- we have been doing this for six months, so --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 27 of 88
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address.
Grant: Anyway, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way, just to the west of
the property there. I just -- myself and other neighbors -- David Thurston is normally
here and he's out of the country on business and I think he is -- certainly we are in
concert with the comments that we would make, but none of us are opposed to
commercial development of this property. We have just been concerned all along that it
not be done on a piecemeal basis and that we think the city has a vested interest in
seeing that this whole area is developed in kind of a consistent manner and not, again,
on a piecemeal basis. I think because of that, this being a major portal from the east to
the City of Meridian, that's a big issue for the city, as some have stated in the past. Last
fall the Planning and Zoning recommended the applicants present a development plan
and in the five or six months since that hearing -- this hearing has been opened, in my
mind, anyway, there hasn't been that much -- it's still pretty broad. Mr. Nary, quoting
you from the meeting on the 14th of October: Until we see a plan, the city doesn't know
what it's getting into. Mayor de Weerd, you added that without a plan annexation
doesn't give the city anything. And I'm just still not comfortable if there is a plan that is
comprehensive enough and with enough detail to give us a feel of what that's going to
look like. I'm also concerned that the parcel to the south -- I think it's 14 or 15 acres, it's
not a part of this recommendation, is an integral part of whatever is going to occur on
this southwest corner piece of this. It's just something that is not a part and it's going to
have to eventually, so I don't know what the property owners -- I don't know what we
gain by approving this annexation request without -- without that piece and without this
Comprehensive Plan with a little more detail than has been presented. All of the
property owners that I have talked to on the west side would not be in favor of multi-
family residential, especially where it's located there. That goes from low density
housing to pretty high density in a hurry. A 30 foot berm is not much of a barrier for that
and every one of us, when this does come back, eventually will -- would be very
concerned about that, where it's located. I think that's about all the testimony I have.
We just have concerns, would like to see more of a development plan than has been
presented and would ask you to reconsider this until such time as that comes forward in
a little more detail, as I have indicated. Do you have any questions of me or perhaps
any others that may want to testify?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Grant: If not, thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Lau: My name is Jim Lau, I live at 1406 North Leslie Road, just to the south of this.
Nary: Could you spell your last name?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 28 of 88
Lau: L -a -u. I have also attended several meetings here, probably this is the fifth or sixth
meeting, although it's the first time I have addressed the Council, we, really, up to this
point I don't think had sufficient information to respond to, but I think we do now and, to
me, this application is a prime example of why, as a society and as a community, we
have elected to govern ourselves with things such as planning and zoning and councils
and long-term plans. The City of Meridian has adopted, you know, what I feel is an
excellent, well thought out, carefully planned Comprehensive Plan and I'd just like to
refer to a couple sections in here very briefly the way that I read this and that I
understand it. First of all, on page 95 it defines a low density area as three units -- three
dwelling units or less per acre, whereas there is also medium density and high density,
high density is developed of multi -family homes, which might include duplexes,
apartment buildings, townhouses, and other multi -unit structures. Page 100 of the
same plan talks about in residential areas, other residential densities will be considered
without requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment. However, the density can only be
changed by one step, that is from low to medium or medium to high. On page 98 of this
document it talks about when a project is developed adjacent to low or medium density
residential uses, a transitional use is encouraged. And, finally, on page 91 it talks about
high density housing must be strategically located to public transportation, community
services, and not negatively affect property values. Clearly, anything that is done
zoning wise, annex wise, to this proposal will favorably impact the person who owns this
property and I think the question is what will the impact be on the surrounding
neighborhood. We -- several of the neighbors attended a brief meeting in Mrs. Ruwe's
home where she presented to us some additional information, which, perhaps, hasn't
been presented to Council or Planning and Zoning, where she's actually showed us that
in the multi -family area of the proposal is for 17 four-plex units, including five units to the
western border, five buildings, plus parking lots, would be adjacent to three of the
existing home sites. Altogether 17 units -- or 17 four-plexes for the 68 units. Just, I
guess, a couple personal observations as well and I will try to be brief on this. As was
already mentioned here, this whole area to me -- not only these sections, but the
section, again, to the south of it, which will become landlocked with this if it -- it just cries
out for some type of overall development plan. It is -- as was pointed out, it's going to
be the gateway to the north and to the east and without some overall planning, this
could easily become like a patchwork quilt, without a lot of logic to these different areas.
The Eagle Road access has been discussed over and over and I don't need to go
through that again, but to put 68 units back here in the multi -family area, then, with the
potential, really, of a hundred or more to the south of this, because certainly whatever is
done here will be precedent for the parcel of land to the south, that access, whether it's
Eagle Road or even Ustick, is going to be questionable. I think I'll close with that. I
would ask the Council to reject this application in its current condition and -- until the
applicant has come back with a plan that I believe is more in compliance with the -- with
the intent and the -- intent and good faith compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that
was put together by the city.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lau: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 29 of 88
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Thank you.
Davis: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council --
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Davis: Eric Davis, 602 Sandstone in Boise. And I was in the hall when you swore in.
De Weerd: I saw you.
Davis: I just wanted to say on behalf of the Kissler parcel that, you know, I -- we think
this is a responsible way to move forward given what we have on information available.
It's a one -step -at -time approach. We are here asking for -- to be a part -- made a part of
Meridian city where, you know, we are not in any city right now, with a zoning that is
broad enough that would accept, probably, the uses that will match the Comprehensive
Plan mixed use and this has been a long long time and to start over again why it would
be -- lose the -- any kind of market driven sense that there is out there. Just -- you
know, this is the point at which we start to represent that we can talk to each other and
communicate and we have -- Bill Strite has done a great job listening to staff and they
have exchanged thoughts and to the best of our ability is reflected in that plan. Those
accesses are talked -- are labeled conditional access where the applicant is willing to
allow cross -access between properties and the connections subject to agreements with
the neighbors and the jurisdiction, fully aware that ITD has -- and ACHD have a long list
of rules and fully aware that the forces all over will be doing a development plan and an
agreement and probably a traffic study based on trip generation and go the whole way
through the conditional use process and to be -- have it be subject to full analysis by
everybody all over again. So, I think that just one step at a time, this being the first
significant step to get something going and realizing that there is a long path ahead.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any questions? Thank you. Okay. Is there any further
testimony?
Powell: Madam Mayor, I did want to -- one of the gentlemen before Mr. Davis spoke of
precedent and I just -- for the benefit of Mr. Wardle, who wasn't on at the original
hearing, there -- this is -- everyone is very much interested in what you say tonight.
There is an application that will come before you soon to the property just to the north
on the west side of Eagle Road and the applicant's representative to the north on the
east side of Eagle Road is -- made some initial contact and just decided to wait and see
what happened here before moving on. So, just so you're aware, that you are being
looked at today very closely and I just didn't know if Councilmember Wardle is aware of
all the applications coming in at this -- at this intersection. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anna, has there been any concerted effort to maybe pull all four corners,
the property owners, and have some dialogue for an overall vision for connectivity and
how these four corners can compliment each other?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 30 of 88
Powell: We have not and in some ways Eagle Road is such a huge barrier, I'm not sure
that there is much opportunity for them to work with one another. I guess we have just
been focusing on how they relate to the properties nearest them and this one, because
it was the two corners, they were already working together. The Blue Marlin corner has
pretty much kind of wanted to do it their way, so that we haven't had a lot of discussion,
no. Would you like us to do something, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Well, certainly that's Council's decision. I was just asking.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Is this hearing we are having right now, is it only on Item 13 or did we open it on
14 as well?
De Weerd: Item 13.
Nary: Because I believe there was some testimony from Mr. Strite or maybe Mrs.
Powell about the other parcel. I'm only going to ask, because it was brought up, but
there is -- what's recommended is the development agreement just for parcels on the
west side of Eagle Road, correct, and not for the east side?
Powell: Yes, sir. And the concern -- I guess the staff thoughts when it first went
through were that -- particularly because of the separate ownerships on the east side
that it was crucial to have some sort of concept plan and in the mix of uses kind of --
because they took care of more of the mix of uses, the larger parcel was allowed to not
be part of the development agreement, although they did agree to the condition --
requirement for conditional use as they came through.
Nary: On the east side?
Powell: I believe it's on both sides. So, to make a requirement, I think they still have to
be part of the development agreement and — I believe Mr. Strite's ready to answer that
question.
Nary: Mr. Strite is going to answer that. That's why he walked up.
De Weerd: Mr. Strite.
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that parcel which was referred to as the Dealy
parcel just due east of Mr. Kissler's parcel, is now owned by Mr. Kissler and, thus, we
assume that that would, then, be acted upon at the same time. However, as I
understand it, that's going to be acted separately. But I think, if I'm understanding the
context of your question, that, in fact, does belong to Mr. Kissler, so it's a single parcel,
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 31 of 88
as opposed to the west side where we have three different parcels and that's why the
staff had recommended that the development agreement was not necessary on the east
side, in fact, only on the west side. If that makes sense.
Nary: Right. But is there a conditional use requirement for the uses on the east side?
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, there is a conditional use required for any and
all uses for all the parcels being annexed and the Dealy application that follows.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Would you like to provide your response to the testimony we
received?
Strite: Madam Mayor, I have little response. I think that both those in opposition --
well, actually, I guess, Mr. Grant was in opposition, but I think they should have
concerns, but I guess I have to agree with Mr. Davis that we have to start somewhere
and by virtue of the vehicle that you have put together with the conditional use process,
it seems clear to me -- and I go through it -- not nearly as much as you do, but I go
through it a lot and I think that we have to rely on a Comprehensive Plan and that's why
we have that process in order. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate that if any and all
the uses that are put before this -- on this parcel before this Commission or before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the neighbors have that opportunity. I think you get
the opportunity to look at connectivity. I think Mr. Eagy makes a good point and it
certainly was not suggested that those access point are defined definitively. We are not
trying to suggest that they have to be at one location or the other. All we are suggesting
is that for good planning and as suggested by the staff, we do have connectivity and it's
our intent, ultimately, as Mr. Lau made reference to, to include that parcel to the south,
because there is going to be some limited access, not necessarily -- at this point I'm not
sure what's agreed with that southerly parcel, but they are going to have some
limitations to accessibility. Therefore, we provide conditional access such that we can
combine all these parcels and I think not in a haphazard way, but in a collective way to
make a concurrent plan that everybody can agree upon and, ultimately, have the same
desires and end result and so with that I will end my presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to open this up in the public hearing for everyone's
benefit, including mine, which I was not available at the other hearings. It appears to
me that what we are talking about is the former application came in with the blanket
commercial zoning and my question of this Council and the people that heard the
hearings before, this certainly isn't to the level that we have seen other developments,
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 32 of 88
but this is enough to get us rolling and so that's the question that I have of the people up
here and their thoughts about this new plan.
De Weerd: And those would be the questions that you would answer.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess to maybe answer Councilman Wardle's question, we did ask for a
concept plan. This is kind of it. I mean it's not really a concept plan to any degree, but I
guess what I'm trying to balance here is normally when we see applications, we see
annexations, preliminary plats, conditional use permits, we see the whole -- the whole
project before us and so they do show us what's generally intended and we have went
back and forth with a number of different developers on Fairview Lakes or Silverstone
where it's a very liquid plan and it changes constantly and we have to sort of keep track
of the number of changes and I think Mrs. Powell and her staff really work very hard to
try to keep track of those things. But here all we are being asked is to annex some
property, so that they can be a part of the city, they can pay city taxes, they can be
considered in the city limits and all they have asked is to be zoned to what we already
said it should be for that spot. They haven't asked to do anything with it, they haven't
asked to build anything on it, they haven't asked to do anything, other than become part
of the city. We already had decided by the Comprehensive Plan -- and I think the
gentleman that testified understood that -- that we made a decision when we passed
this as to what we thought the type of development for that location should be. We
didn't say what it had to be, we didn't say that it was offices or apartments or retail
stores or whatever, we didn't say specifically what, we just said something like that.
That's all they have asked. The reason I ask the question of Mr. Strite and Mrs. Powell
was are we going to see that again, so that the neighbors know what is going to be
there and we get to see what -- when they decide what they want to do with it, when
they decide if they want offices, multi -family residential, I don't know what high intensity
development is, we don't have a zone for that, commercial, office, whatever, then, we
are going to see it. And someone is going to get notice and we will have a hearing and
they have chosen rather than to bring us the whole concept now, to have to have
hearing after hearing after hearing, so that we could approve it, they have opted instead
to say make us part of your city now and we will come back for hearing, after hearing,
after hearing to tell you what we want to do every time we want to do something. I
mean I think you get one or the other and, generally, you get to pick from either option
and this developer has chosen that second option to bring those back to tell us what
they are going to do each step of the way. I don't have a big concern with that and
that's what -- I mean that's their choice. It's a cumbersome process for them, it can be
cumbersome for the staff, it can take a lot of time and effort, but if they don't know what
they want to do now, it doesn't make -- it doesn't really seem reasonable to me to tell
these folks they can't be a part of the city, because they haven't bought the middle piece
and because they haven't decided whether it's a Target or a C Store on the corner. I
mean we don't know what they want to do, they don't know what they want to do yet. I
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 33 of 88
don't know that there is any reason to deny it just because at some point they are going
to do something, because we will get the chance to see that. So, I guess -- I don't know
if that helps answer the question you had, Councilman Wardle, but I think that's what we
have wrestled with is normally you get one or the other and this happens to be the one
we don't see as often, people saying just let us be part of the city, we will take the zone
you have already decided, and that's all we want and we will figure it out, because it
does make more sense, as was testified to, that the connectivity be decided and the
type of development be decided, but they don't have to decide all that today just to be
annexed, when they are not asking for any other special consideration, other than to be
annexed in for the zone we decided it to be and that's it, so I don't know if that helps or -
Powell: Councilmembers, Madam Mayor, I did have a chance to check the conditions
of approval, so as they sit right now, these -- since they are part of the development
agreement that would include a requirement that each use come in for a Conditional
Use Permit, the Kissler property, which goes around like this, is not included in the
development agreement, therefore, we couldn't make that a requirement. If they
proposed a single principal permitted use on that property, then, that would not come
before you again. There is, however -- and, again, this is the next hearing, but the other
Kissler property does have the requirement for the development agreement.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And, again, I know that's the next parcel, but, then -- or the next hearing, but that
other piece on the east side is a mixed use parcel.
Powell: Correct.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I would just add something for Mr. Wardle's information, is it hasn't
happened very often, because we have discouraged it and staff has discouraged
applicants to come in without a plat and that's why we don't see it very often, is a
development agreement and annexation is an opportunity for us to see if -- before we
bring something into the city limits, it's going to be of benefit and value to the community
by bringing it in. We don't just bring it in to get taxes off that piece of property. So, I
guess traditionally we have not looked at this. Now, with business land, there needs to
be a certain level of flexibility in that, but I'm not sure when it's surrounded by residential
or when it has a residential component if the annexation should come separate from the
plat and that's always something that we have struggled with and that's probably why
staff comment has been -- you know, it hasn't happened very often and that has been
for a reason. I know that staff has been very diligent in discouraging those coming --
and so has the Planning and Zoning Commission. Just more information. So, Council,
what would you like to do?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 34 of 88
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The first thing we need to do is close the Public Hearing and I move that we close
the Public Hearing on Item No. 13.
Grant: Excuse me. Could I clarify just one thing. Mr. Strite described my testimony as
being -- not being opposed. It certainly is opposed.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, just -- just to clarify it doesn't. We understand what you --
so I do have a motion.
Wardle: Second.
De. Weerd: It's been moved and second to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't have a discussion, I do have a question for Mr. Nichols. Eagy is still listed
on the application, but when we make our motion that name should be left out, shouldn't
it, as it's no longer part of it?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that would be correct. And I believe
that the application legal description has already been amended to exclude the Eagy
parcel.
Bird: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I do have some further discussion and appreciate all the comments from the
public testimony and I agree with Mr. Nary in the sense that we get to see this
application over and over -- or, I'm sorry, this property over and over and allow for a lot
of public testimony. I do feel that the City of Meridian is changing the way it does -- it
approves some of these projects mostly because they are new commercial business
projects and I think it's important for us to find an avenue to do that with some controls
and, then, also place the public testimony component in there, so that people have an
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 35 of 88
opportunity to make those decisions about what goes on in their community and so I
appreciate all that testimony and --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make a motion I'd like to make one statement. I agree with what Mr. Nary
said during the Public Hearing. I, for one, can't see -- I, for one, hate CUPS. This is one
way we control this and we are basically just annexing the property, we are not giving
any go ahead on anything or any designs, so with that said I would move that we
approve AZ 03-018, the annexation and zoning of Kissler, Cobb, and Ruwe parcels and
to take condition number three as per applicant's statement.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-018 and it looks
like we have discussion.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when you say per the applicant's
comment on item three, could you clarify that for me, please, so that we get the findings
correct?
Bird: It was on the --
De Weerd: It's on the conceptual plan.
Bird: -- on the conceptual plan and the limit of it.
Nichols: That would be conditional uses would be required for all uses as shown on the
conceptual plan.
Bird: That's right.
Nichols: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for technicality sake, this approval is only conditioned upon the next one,
because that top parcel or the portion in the corner isn't contiguous to the city unless we
approve the other one. So, it doesn't — timing -wise it doesn't make any difference to
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 36 of 88
me, but certainly we would have to reconsider it, if, for some reason, on the next item
we didn't approve it.
Bird: You're right.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Nary, it's vice -versa. The next one is
contingent upon this one being annexed.
Nary: But isn't the top corner of the -- I don't have the --
Powell: The annexation path comes through Carol Subdivision --
Nary: But this piece isn't annexable until we annex this piece.
Bird: That's Kissler. This is the one we are annexing.
Nary: This is part of Kissler. Okay. I'm sorry.
Bird: We are annexing --
Nary: I got it. I'm sorry. Then we are good.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. The motion was to approve Item 13.
Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-022
Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C -G zones for
Kissler (Deals Parcell by BRS Architects — southeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a continued Public Hearing for November 5th, AZ 03-022,
for the Kissler property. Staff.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the outline of the five acre piece
adjoining the Kissler property we just discussed. I'll end staffs presentation there, other
than to say that the same development agreement that was on the eastern half of the --
no, I'm sorry, the western half of the prior application applies to this five acre piece. I
think staffs intent was because this became the buffer between the larger commercial
use and the residential uses further to the east, that the development agreement was
appropriate.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna could you --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 37 of 88
Powell: Did that confuse you?
De Weerd: -- clarify that?
Powell: At the time we were looking at the action that you just took on the previous
application, the Kissler property, we knew that Mr. Kissler owned this five acre piece.
This five acre piece is the one that becomes the buffer to the other residential uses, so
even though previous action did not put the development agreement on the Kissler
property, because this one provided that transition from the larger Kissler property to the
adjoining residences, we did request a development agreement on this portion.
De Weerd: As well. And similar to the development agreement in the previous
application?
Powell: Yes. Although perhaps I wasn't clear. I tried to be clear. The Kissler property,
the large property on the last one, the development agreement did not extend to that
property.
Nary: Is that this piece?
Powell: Correct. This concept plan would still apply to it, but --
De Weerd: So, the development agreement does not apply to the southeast corner and
so any permitted use would be allowed without any Public Hearing?
Powell: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Doesn't the recommendation I'm reading here say there is a development
agreement and it's this entire parcel, not to a portion of the parcel? I'm looking at three.
Prior to the annexation ordinance approval a development agreement shall be entered
into between the city and the property owner and this is the Kissler -- what was formerly
called the Kissler-Dealy parcel.
Powell: That's the Klssler-Dealy parcel.
De Weerd: The long skinny one. So, do we have a misunderstanding?
Nary: Well, I don't know. I guess -- can we go back to that last picture?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 38 of 88
Powell: That one?
Nary: No. The one from -- that one 72. So, all this parcel that we are talking about for
Item 14 is this piece here and this piece here?
Powell: Just the first this piece here, sir.
Bird: The first one, Bill.
Nary: This one here. And all of this stuff was part of the other one --
Powell: Correct.
Nary: -- of item 13.
Powell: Correct. As outlined there.
Nary: And the development agreement is only dealing with this portion and this portion
on the west side of Eagle Road and not this portion.
Powell: Correct.
Nary: And so if we wanted that to be all conditional use requirement, we would have to
back up and add that condition to that annexation --
Powell: Correct.
Nary: -- as part of that development agreement.
Powell: Correct.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I thought in the applicant's testimony that condition number three he was -- he
clarified that they would all be -- all parcels would be CUP required. Am I not right?
De Weerd: I think we will have to ask the applicant.
Bird: I'm with you, Mayor.
Powell: If that is the intent, I believe that the only way that we can require that is to
have that be in the development agreement as well.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 39 of 88
De Weerd: A specific condition stated.
Powell: Yes.
De Weerd: Any other questions for staff at this point?
Powell: I apologize for not making that clearer last time.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Powell: Madam Mayor, I see Mr. Strite standing and ready to address you on the issue
and anticipate he may tell you that it's okay to put a development agreement on the
other parcel as well. And that, if so, you could simply go back, address the motion
again, clarify that issue, but he needs to speak to you on that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Strite. If you will, again, state your
name and address.
Bird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise. I'm
here on behalf Mr. Kissler, who does, in fact, own the Dealy parcel. The only reason
that I made the comment relative to my understanding of the development agreement
was based on the conditions that were applied on sheet -- or item number three of the
conditions where, in fact, it refers to -- in the last sentence that this would be west -- the
parcels on the west side of Eagle Road only. We have absolutely no problem with
adding a condition for a development agreement on the easterly side, including both the
Kissler and as originally submitted and the Kissler-Dealy parcel as is before you tonight.
And I apologize, it was my understanding from this staff report that the development
agreement was only for those westerly parcels. We do not have opposition to including
the development agreement to the easterly side in its total. With that, I have no other
comments.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That's what your testimony was on the original, wasn't it, Mr. Strite, that you had
no problem with a development agreement?
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, my original testimony made reference to the
fact that we had no problem with a conditional use on anything that was being annexed
tonight in its total. The question was because of item number three there was not a
development agreement necessary for the easterly. Unless, in fact, it's the staffs
Merldian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 40 of 88
request to include that, because of the adjacency to residential uses now on the
easterly side, we are prepared to do so.
De Weerd: I think it's Council's. Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess to make this muddier than -- I mean I'm reading the ones from the one we
just approved and it says that the development agreement is to all the parcels in the
boundaries of this annexation, which includes that piece. And the only part regarding
the western portion is that a master plan demonstrating interconnectivity, transitional
uses, access points, and other key land use -- or land planning issues is required prior
to any CUP for any of the six parcels on the west side. So, I think the language already
said this was part of the development agreement and that's what I thought we were
doing. So, I mean we can clarify that, but as long as you're all -- if you're in agreement
with it, that's what we thought we were doing, that's what I think was said already, I think
we will clear that up, but we can deal with that one little piece and be done. I think we
are --
Strite: My apologies.
Nary: No. I think the language is here, Mr. Strite.
Strite: Thank you.
Nary: So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Davis? Is there anyone else who would like to issue
testimony on this item?
Powell: Madam Mayor, false alarm. I'm sorry. I keep on thinking there is four owners,
because there is six properties over on the west. You're completely right. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Thank you. We won't be too hard on you.
Powell : Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. We have an open Public Hearing. Is there any further testimony?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Item No. 14, AZ 03-022.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 41 of 88
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Item 14, AZ 03-022. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve AZ 03-022, annexation for the Kissler-Dealy parcel and
incorporate staff and applicant testimony.
Wardle: Second.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded twice to approve Item 14, AZ 03-022. Mr.
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 04-001 Request for a Variance to ordinance MCC
11-9-1 height restrictions in a C -G zone for Silverstone Corporate
Center & Business Center by Sundance Investments — southeast corner
of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item 15 is Public Hearing VAR 04-001, variance request for Silverstone
Corporate Center and Business Center. I'll open the Public Hearing with staff
comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, are you sure you want to let me stay
up here after that last one? I don't know. Anyway, the variance application before you
tonight -- at the time staff did the application we had very little detail, so the applicant
can provide you more details and I will hit on them, but the staff report seems to not be
based on much, because we didn't have much at that time. In general, the variance is
for the property outlined here, which is all of the Silverstone Business Campus as has
been before you before previously. The height limit in that area for the C -G zone is 40
feet. The applicants are requesting 60 feet. What we didn't have at the time we wrote
the staff report was an idea of where the building would be, what it would look like. We
had none of that information. So, we do have that now. This is -- these are the
elevations of the 60 foot high -- or the applicant's architect is here tonight and he can tell
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 42 of 88
you exactly how high it is, but this -- these are the elevations now that we have been
provided and I also have a site plan if you would give me just a moment. This is the site
plan. The two buildings are located -- there we go. There is our roads, the heavy black
line, and, then, these would be the location of the building. Originally, they had intended
to do it in one -- or two phases. Their thoughts now are that it will be done in one
phase. So, the whole structure would come at once. Staffs recommendation was for
denial. As you know, there are four findings that you are required to make for a
variance application. Staff felt that two of those findings could be made rather easily.
However, the other two, particularly findings A and B listed in your staff report, we didn't
have enough information at that time to make a determination that it was consistent with
those findings. I think I will end staffs presentation there.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Anna, does your recommendation change with the additional information that
you have received now?
Powell: Probably need further -- without public testimony I'm not sure that I could
change that now. As staff it's most difficult for us to find justification for a height
variance. The ceiling isn't higher or lower -- you know, the ski isn't higher or lower in
these areas. I think that there is probably some need for some -- looking at the height
allowances in some of those zones for taller buildings. We seem to be getting these
requests for taller buildings. St. Luke's came through -- the St. Luke's medical office
building adjoining that came through requesting higher heights. Those were done
through a planned unit development, rather than a variance, I believe. So, staffs
recommendation still stands at denial.
De Weerd: Anna, I guess the initial reaction from staff was that three out of four
variance requirements were met and the fourth one -- and that was a verbal answer.
And the fourth one could go either way. I guess I would ask why that initial response
has changed.
Powell: I'm not sure when you got that verbal response. I have never heard more than
two of the four discussed.
De Weerd: Okay. And within these business parks, we are looking at our zoning
ordinances and looking at updating some of the components and that's certainly one
that is being considered.
Powell: Yes. It is now.
De Weerd: I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 43 of 88
Powell: And I would say that, you know, the height controls are generally a bulk issue
and part of that would be we do allow a 70 percent coverage of a site with that 40 foot
height. Clearly, the site that you see before you tonight doesn't have anywhere near a
70 percent coverage of the buildings on that property and they have chosen to go
higher, rather than -- rather than have a larger building with a larger footprint -- I mean
the same square footage, but it would be a much larger footprint on the ground and they
have just decided to go higher and leave more space open around them. So, from the
perspective of bulk, then, the height doesn't seem to be an issue here, because, quite
frankly, they are surrounded by a sea of parking, but it's -- there is plenty of open space
around it as far as non -building space, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here?
Were you here when we swore in the public?
Larsen: I was in the lobby, but I did not participate, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Larsen: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. And
I'm here tonight representing the applicant, as well as the developers and the tenants
for the Hercules project, as we have named this project. It was several years ago we
were before City Council with Silverstone project in its entirety and during that time we
had talked with City Council and members of the community and we were looking to
create an employment center for the Meridian area to attract businesses to the facility
that we had, as well as to the City of Meridian and this request is a result of about a
year and a half worth of marketing to try to accomplish getting a substantial user to the
City of Meridian. So, what I'd like to do is take a minute and explain the reasoning for
the project and the reasons for the height variance. We did site the building purposely
to the south of the site away from the neighbors on the north side along Overland Road.
The property is surrounded pretty much by commercial -- or at least the building is
surrounded pretty much by commercial ground and so we felt like that was the best
place that it could be sited for a building of that height. So, it provided the least amount
of impact on the adjacent neighbors that would be either developing or currently
surrounding the property. This user has gone around the country and has been looking
for three or four sites in the entire United States and they have selected Meridian,
assuming that we can accomplish all their approvals, they would like to be here and to
proceed with this new building. Now, the reason we have asked for the variance in
height is their standard building design and prototype for this particular use requires a
three-story building. They already have this building designed and it would be an
extreme economic hardship for them to redo this facility specifically for one site and they
most likely wouldn't, they would most likely move on, because they have so much time
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 44 of 88
and money invested in the other two sites, that it wouldn't be likely that they would
continue. So, with that we felt there was some good reasons for them asking for a
height variance, as well as some good reasons for trying to attract this user to the City
of Meridian. The building, to explain the building a little bit to you, and, for the record,
I'm not the architect on the project, I'm here tonight on behalf of Sundance. The
architect, actually, is out of town, as well as is the contractor and the developer on the
project. The building typically has a 15 foot floor -to -floor height and included in that is a
one foot access floor. The access floor is pretty characteristic to this use, because they
need to be able to run all their cabling and wiring under the floor to their cubicles and
their offices within the project. So, to get three stories with a 15 foot floor -to -floor height,
to have a little bit of parapet to meet roof manufacturer's warranties, we need to be
somewhere around 48, 49 feet to the top of the walls on the main part of the building
and to give you a little better feel for the project, the two towers, as you see them on the
ends, I think they are at -- I think they are shown at 55 feet on that drawing, although I
couldn't read it very clearly when it came to me today through the e-mail, but we had
asked for 60 feet, not knowing how high their mechanical units would go. Their
mechanical units and equipment are enclosed on the ends of that facility and would be
utilized to serve the air-conditioning and heating for the building. So, the reason that
they -- the height that we had requested was, number one, it was a little bit unknown
when we first started how high their building was going to be and, secondly, we wanted
to make sure all the mechanical units were screened behind the walls, so that they were
not visible to the surrounding area. And in reviewing the staff report, we were willing to
explain to you why we had the 15 foot floor -to -floor height requirements and why we
had the three story building that was requested for this particular user. The Hercules
people were, obviously, on a tight schedule, as some of you may have heard, so they
are trying to have this facility open in October, if it's possible. And we are willing to --
initially we'd ask for a variance on a considerable amount of area in the project and we
are willing to restrict that variance to their site. They told us, as well as staff today, that
they would be interested in purchasing 28 acres of the project and moving forward with
the project. They would be willing to do the first phase of the building as you see, which
is 170,000 square feet and, then, they would come back either -- and they may do both
phases this year, but they would come back and do the second phase shortly thereafter.
So, with that in mind, in looking at staffs recommendations, we didn't have a problem
with the 70 percent coverage over the 28 -acre site, because that seemed to be
reasonable. The proposed roof for the building is flat and the height would be
somewhat near 50 feet, assuming that they may have some antennas on the roof or in
the mechanical enclosure. Again, we ask for 60, so we were -- felt like we were at the
height limitations -- or within those height limitations we couldn't get everything in there
that we needed to have. We are only asking for the height variance on this particular
building, not on other facilities, so we want that to be as clear as we can at this point in
time. We are not asking for it over the whole area. Our request was over the whole
area as we started, but we didn't exactly know where the building was going to be
positioned and we were trying to react to a user that did want to provide jobs and a
facility here for the citizens of Meridian. So, we understand staffs request for denial, but
we feel like that we have met a good deal of the terms and conditions of trying to
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 45 of 88
provide for a variance and would certainly be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
De Weerd: Any questions for the applicant's representative?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Cornell, did I misunderstand -- is this phase one and, then, there is a possibility of
another building?
Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, that is correct. We would have a second
building that's approximately 156,000 square feet. This one is 170,000 square feet.
Bird: And they would need the variance, too, on the height?
Larsen: Yeah. We would be requesting for the height on this specific 28 acres. Should
they change their layout I wouldn't want it specific to the exact building site if they
flipped their building or mirrored their building or changed it, we would want it specific to
this project name if we could.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Larsen, I guess I probably should have asked Mrs. Powell, but maybe you
will know or she can tell me, give me some relationship to scale in comparison to this
building height you're asking for compared to St. Luke's. I think Mrs. Powell mentioned
St. Luke's and maybe the PUD for their building, but could you give me some idea what
the size relationship of this were to that?
Larsen: Yes, Ma'am Mayor, Councilman Nary, I believe St. Luke's asked for 110 or 105
feet -- I'm not a hundred percent sure, because I wasn't part of that, but that was my
recollection and --
Nary: Okay.
Powell: I believe Mr. Larsen is correct. I think the medical office building was just a little
bit smaller than that, 95 feet or something like that.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 46 of 88
Powell: And those were four story structures. The medical office building, I believe,
was a four-story structure, not a three-story structure.
Bird: The three-story with the mechanical on top at the office part and, then, it's five -
story at the medical --
De Weerd: At the hospital.
Bird: -- at the hospital.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for clarification, Mr. Larsen, what are these portions that are highlighted
different? What is that?
Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, those are part of our nondisclosure
agreement of who the tenant might be and so, consequently, I cannot divulge the
tenants. That's a sign for the user of the project.
Bird: It's a band-aid.
Nary: It's a sign with a band-aid. Okay. That's fine.
Larsen: If you can find out who the user is it's okay with me, but I can't tell you.
Nary: That's fine. Thank you.
De Weerd: It's that attorney in him.
Larsen: Yes.
Nary: It just looks funny.
Larsen: Actually, I kind of thought it was an interesting louver.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. All right. I do have one person signed to give testimony,
Edward Thomas. Were you part of the initial swear -in process?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 47 of 88
Thomas: Yes, I was.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Thomas: Edward Thomas, 3820 East Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thomas: Members of the Council, Madam Mayor, the comments I sent in were related
to the complete ambiguity of the original proposal. Now, that it's laid out, it looks a lot
like where I work, which is a little depressing to have next door, but if there is a problem
from my perspective, it's that it's so close to residential areas. It blocks the view of
anybody wanting to build on the eastern side. They don't live there now, but they are
zoned there and they probably will. Anybody building there pretty much is going to be
looking at the side of a building. People have built like that next to where I work. They
don't seem to mind. They are company people, they move right in. They love it. I can't
understand it, but they love it. It's certainly possible that somebody might want to move
right in next to this behemoth. Fine. But it does -- you got residential to the north, the
east, and the south. St. Luke's is a special case, because it's a medical facility and a
public service. I love it to death. We use it regularly. And it's a high building and it
should be. This is a business, a profit center. Now, should it be three stories high?
Based on hints people are dropping right and left and more information coming in, just
like -- you know, some of this could have been handy like a week ago this would have
been a lot different, you know. People should maybe spell some of this stuff out. It
would help. So, let's assume that this place is a lot like where I work, maybe even a
direct competitor, which is also a little depressing, we will get over that. They are going
to have significant electrical and electronics requirements. They are going to have
computer networks that will just boggle your head. High speed everything. Significant
radio interference. And they are going to be kind of a high tech, high impact outfit, and
they will create jobs and I'm sorry I'm totally unprepared. I'm trying to wing it here. But
it's hard to argue against something like my employer, but the difference is my employer
is not smack dab -- thank you very much -- smack dab in a residential zone and you
have height restrictions for a reason, you have your criteria, I'm not nearly as opposed
to this as I was before, but I think it would have been nice to have more information and
whatever you decide is fine and thank you for your patience.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Council?
Larsen: Madam Mayor, Cornell Larsen again. I really would like to apologize to Mr.
Thomas and the staff somewhat, because we have had a lack of information to give out
in the process, because we have been unable to do so by contract. So, as it's became
available to us and been available to the public and to the staff, we have tried to get that
information there as quickly as possible. To tell you how quickly this project is moving,
these elevations were sent this morning via e-mail to staff, so that they could be here
today so that you would have a feel for what they are trying to do with this project.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 48 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you. We understand covert operations.
Larsen: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Larsen, just one more thing. Just to help me again, tell me exactly where the
site of this -- at least the one and potentially second building are in relation to the
property.
Larsen: Okay. Madam Mayor and Councilman Nary, the property that we are talking
about is right here. When we did the original Silverstone project we had Copperpoint
coming over like this and we had tied into a street here. We had a road coming up this
side, which was called -- I don't know whether that's Jade and this one is Topaz or vice -
versa. Mr. Thomas lives about right there. This is the project location right here. This
is Copperpoint Drive coming through and, then, turning into -- the road runs north and
south.
Nary: So, the elevation that we are looking at is for a building at least at the moment -- I
know it's not set in stone, but at the moment it's sited approximately like that.
Larsen: Correct.
Nary: And the other potential building is approximately there, that's why it's on the --
Larsen: Correct.
Nary: Okay.
Larsen: They like the view, obviously, towards the foothills and the view towards the
Owyhees that was granted there. Again, we were trying to hold it back as far as we
could from these boundaries. This canal line comes down right about in here. This is a
commercial zone piece of property, I believe. And I'd have to defer to staff, but at least
it's in the Comp Plan, I believe, as commercial. So, it's commercial on this side, this
side, and this is an RUT zone and this is residential up here.
Nary: And the residential portion that's down here, that's Sutherland Farms --
Larsen: It's south of the canal in this particular area.
Nary: A pretty good distance, I take it.
Larsen: I'm not sure what the correct distance is, but it is a distance away.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 49 of 88
Nary: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Also on clarification, this property is sitting down below the canal and the
residential to the south is all above -- is up on a plateau that's elevation -wise quite a bit
higher than where this building would start.
Larsen: Yes, Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, that is correct, there is some elevation
change here as you come over this canal that was, obviously, one of the man-made
canals in the area, but there is an elevation change there.
Nary: Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Larsen was correct, it is zoned C-
G to the south of this property right here. It's a little half moon shape.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no more testimony, I move we close Public Hearing VAR 04-001.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
15. All those in favor say. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make a motion I want to make a statement. I think that if we are going to
get out of our bedroom community philosophy that we have tried to in the last six or
seven years, that we are going to have to have buildings of this type to house
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 50 of 88
employees that can work in Meridian, Idaho, and I believe we are going to have to take
a look at our ordinance and stuff and in these business parks height variances are going
to have to be variable. That's my thoughts on this.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would agree with Councilmember Bird. I mean I'm sure anybody that knows me
that's sat in any of these meetings knows I just hate variances, I hate having to vary
those. I think we do need to reevaluate our ordinances and, obviously, this is one that
we may see more of in the future of people wanting to build these and they need to
make some sense and I think this one does. I mean I think it makes some sense in a
location -- not real thrilled about the -- you know, ten acres of parking around this
building, that isn't very nice yet, but I'm sure it will eventually. I'm sure Mr. Larsen will
put some trees and some other things that will look better. But, otherwise, I do think
that this does fit the criteria that's adequate to be able to grant this variance and, again,
I think we need to revisit our ordinances for it, but I think it makes sense, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would also agree and I think in holding with the ideas of this
community it's great to see buildings such as these move in to provide jobs for people
within the area, so I think it's going to be a great boost to our economy and I think there
is -- I certainly think there is a reason for this variance and agree with Councilman Bird
that we need to look at that within our business parks that we are going to be seeing
more of in the future.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I would move that we approve the Variance 04-001 for Silverstone
Corporate Business Center by Sundance Investments, incorporate all staff and
applicant comments, and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 15 for VAR 04-001.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 51 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. With that we will take a ten minute recess and I'm
sorry to delay this even longer for those of you who have stayed with us all evening, but
we need a break.
(Recess.)
Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 03-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.64
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge
Subdivision by Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 03-041 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 266
single-family residential building lots and 34 common lots on 70.64 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by
Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road:
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 03-065 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development to allow single family residential and attached
single family in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge
Subdivision by Capital Development — 2205 East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call us back in session. If Council has no problem, I will
open Items 16, 17, and 18 at the same time. Okay. We open Public Hearing for AZ 03-
035, PP 03-041, and CUP 03-065 for Settlement Bridge Subdivision. I'll open Items 16,
17, and 18 with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is -- I'm just ready to hand it over
to the applicant. Skip the staff comments. I'm sorry. This is an application for one of
our larger subdivisions in the process right now. It takes access -- this is Linder Road --
see, I know I should just quit. This is Locust Grove and this is McMillan. This is -- the
annexation path for this is at a — never mind. This is the property that would give us an
annexation path to Edinburgh and Vienna Woods Subdivision. It is an application for a
planned unit development. They are requesting reductions to lot frontage requirements.
Just as a real brief overview of the site -- I'm going to let the applicant do most of it, but
it's primarily a single family development with some attached units in this area and also I
believe through here. There is one large park area here and, then, more linear parks
spread throughout the development. And, again, I know that the applicant intends to go
over this in detail with you, so I will be very brief on that. This application does come
forward to you with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. At the Public Hearing the applicant Dave Yorgason and his representative
Mike Wardle testified in favor of the application. There were three members of the
public who testified expressing concerns about the proposed development. I believe
most of those owners were to the south in the subdivision of the one -acre lot subdivision
to the south of the proposed site. The key issues of discussion in question by the
Commission included water supply in the area and the possibility of a well site on the
property, the lack of ACHD action on this application, lack of roadway improvements,
particularly that's part of the concern by the neighboring properties to the south, the lack
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 52 of 88
of sidewalk coming down to the school, which is just south of that subdivision. And,
then, an irrigation ditch on the southern boundary and the proposed fencing adjacent to
that ditch, so that they could burn near the ditch. The key modifications to staffs initial
recommendation were that the Commission did modify to add a fencing condition and
adding a condition regarding private streets. One restricting signature of final plat until
water service is available and I know that the Public Works Department wants to speak
to that issue. There were several other minor modifications made by the Commission,
largely related to site design within the -- some of the tighter areas. This area was
changed. Originally there was a couple stubs. We went through some changes in that
area, I believe. Other cross -access issues. The outstanding issues for the City Council
is fencing along the southern boundary. The applicant had kind of an original idea of
the fencing and it has since withdrawn that idea, so I'm not sure where he stands right
now on the fencing issue. And, then, again, as I mentioned previously, the availability of
water on the site. I do have some elevations here that I wanted to show you. These
are the attached units. I think that the product type that the applicant is proposing for
these attached units is really a far notch above the last attached units we saw come
through and I think these are really a quality unit here. As you can see these would be
a fine addition to the city's mix of housing. Here we -- this is, again, just a brief detail
showing how those attached units would work and, then, the common or shared drives
for those units. And, then, some existing site conditions. And with that I'm going to
hand it over to the city engineer.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, as Anna commented and as you probably
gleaned from the minutes and staff report, there was an issue or is an issue with water
supply in this area. This became evident last fall as development in the north area
continued to out pace supply. About the time this project came in for a pre -application
meeting, shortly thereafter we decided that we needed to very seriously look at some
more water supply in the area. We immediately began to speak with the Westborough
developer and you're probably aware or remember some of those conversations.
Simultaneously, we began conversations with representatives from this project.
Ultimately -- I will try to keep this as brief as possible. Ultimately, we need two normal
size city wells in the Locust Grove, McMillan, to Chinden area. Earlier tonight you
awarded a contract for a test well drilling up on the Westborough site, along with a lot
lease agreement that we successfully negotiated with that developer. The one thing to
keep in mind is there is no guarantee of success on those test wells. It all depends on
what the water volume and water quality is. We have also began to look at another
solution to bring water supply into this area. You approved yet another contract earlier
tonight on the consent agenda with civil survey. It had sort of a euphemistic name to it,
it talked about high pressure zones and the like, but the intent of that is to push some of
the water from Well 2013, which would be another well where the Ustick reservoir is,
push that eastward and northward. So, we are trying to get some more supply up there.
There was a rather odd comment in the Planning and Zone testimony about the city's
inability to provide essential services to this area and that perhaps United Water, being
next door, could help out. The whole reason supply is so slow in coming up there is
because United Water protested our water right, so maybe that's a marketing strategy.
I'm not sure. Anyway, we are developing this plan to push some water towards this
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 53 of 88
project at an estimated cost of probably 50,000 dollars, including design. So, I think
there is a solution. We either get a well successfully drilled and outfitted up in that area,
or, two, we get this piping modification done. It's a timing issue. I think the comment as
it came out of Planning and Zoning is appropriate. To get a new well on line would
probably take right now, if everything went well, nine months to a year.
De Weerd: If it went well?
Watson: If the well went well. Yeah. This piping modification -- the design will probably
not take very long, but because of all the road closures and the difficulties we have had
in the north area over the last year, four to six months -- hopefully sooner than that. I
joked with a staff engineer today that we should apply for our road closure permit today,
so that we can get in there in August, but that's kind of the way it's working up there
right now. So, I guess I'd just like to make that additional condition stand, that one of
those two things will be in place prior to signature on the first phase of the plat and with
that I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Thank
you, Brad. Thanks, Anna. Is the applicant here? Mike, were you part of the swearing in
process?
M. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Please -- is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
M. Wardle: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
M. Wardle: Mike Wardle, 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. And to my knowledge no
direct relationship to the good Councilmember by the same name, although I think it's a
nice name.
Wardle: I do, too. Thank you.
De Weerd: Smoothing is not allowed.
Nary: I told you 15 minutes, Mr. Wardle.
De Weerd: He missed that part.
M. Wardle: I plan to be less than 15 minutes if you would allow me. Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council, the plan that we brought forward for Settlement Bridge is a
single family residential project with 3.7 units per acre. It conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use and densities. It's also compatible with all of
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 54 of 88
the recent annexations, zoning, and subdivision approvals that the city has granted for
projects such as Champion Park, Havasu Creek, Copper Basin, one that's on your
agenda tonight Razzberry Crossing and Heritage Commons in terms of the zoning and
similar densities. It provides a designed in buffer around the Idaho Power substation,
which is located on the corner of McMillan and Locust Grove in the form of the attached
housing units. The attached single family units that Anna has shown to you a moment
ago. The concept there is that it provides screening from the street and the units
themselves don't have second story visibility into that substation site from the units.
They are a story and a half type concept, but they have open space at the back and the
-- thank you. And all of the visibility is actually to the street in the front. So, it does -- it's
a designed in screening concept that takes into account the issues of the substation.
We have also worked with Idaho Power to deal with the buffering enhancing the
landscaping around that. The plan also proposes to implement a major component of
the parks and pathway plan, which is the proposed regional multi -use path that will
come along the North Slough. That project was initiated in the concept and, I apologize,
Mr. Bird, couldn't get it higher, but that was initiated in the Champion Park project and,
eventually, we would expect to see that linking through as part of that regional pathway
that you have adopted previously. It provides -- Dave, if you would go to the next board.
It provides, really, an extraordinary --
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, can we turn this a little bit so the people in the audience can
see, too?
M. Wardle: Okay. Yeah.
De Weerd: Maybe move it back and tilt it a little so Council can see it
M. Wardle: Dave, overjust a little bit further.
De Weerd: Maybe you can put it on the taller one. There you go.
M. Wardle: The open space system actually takes into account three major elements.
We have literally linked the west to the east throughout the project with a linear open
space system, but it also has two activity areas that are tied into that, both with direct
visibility for both the incoming access points from Locust Grove and from McMillan. We
also have factored in what we -- what I have termed The Grove, which is the existing
home area that has extensive amount of trees and landscape associated with it and that
will be saved to the extent possible. There will be a great deal of vegetation on that site
when this effort is complete. And, then, that links across the North Slough, which, then,
provides that pathway link to open space corridors into this interior system and there is
really only one through street that has a crossing element here in this location and there
is a cul-de-sac and so forth, but there is in excess of the required amount of open space
and it provides use areas, as well as a way for the neighborhood to relate one to
another within the project. The changes that were proposed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission that Anna has related to you here this evening have been
addressed largely. I just want to note that ACHD did act on the application a week after
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 55 of 88
the Planning and Zoning Commission held its hearing. It was approved as submitted.
There were no extraordinary issues or conditions that ACHD applied and their
conditions are included as conditions of approval by direct insert in the staff reports
before you this evening. With regard to the issue that Anna mentioned along the
southern boundary, the question there was concern of the adjacent properties for
maintenance of a ditch that they typically burn, so the fencing question there was to be
noncombustible. I don't think we have withdrawn anything. We had, actually, submitted
two concepts to staff, one a chain link fence with an innovative slat called a hedge link
fence that, actually, has the look of a deciduous type hedge or an ornamental fence,
because, again, it needs to be noncombustible. So, we submitted, actually, both of
those and we will go through the details, but the issue was I think the concern of the
neighbors that there not be something there that would be damaged if, in fact, they
maintained by burning their ditch and I think that's the direction that we are headed. So,
it really left just really the issue of the water site or the water availability and I think
Capital Development has worked diligently with the city to address the water supply
need. I think staff can concur with that and I'm pleased to hear that they have another
option that they are looking at as well. The concern that we really have with regard to
water is Condition No. 25. Staff, I think, has noted in the preliminary plat. That
condition, of course, says until such time as additional water supply can be supplied in
the vicinity, the city will not sign the final plat for any phase of this development. The
problem we have with this is we are not aware that the issue has been raised before in
any of the applications that were recently addressed and one that's in the process
currently and so if there had been no such constraints imposed on other projects, we
would believe that acting in good faith and diligence in condition -- or recommendation
number four in the annexation recommendation simply states that the Public Works
Department has determined that an additional water supply well is needed in this
vicinity. The developer shall negotiate with the City of Meridian for the acquisition of a
parcel for a new municipal well within this site. The applicant is willing to do so and to
complete that if this proves to be the location. We would, then, suggest that if that is
accomplished, that condition number 25 be deleted, because it would put, then, the city
in control of the matter, it would be out of the control of the Capital Development to
provide the need or the source, because the city would be, then, responsible to
complete that well and put it on line and unless that restriction was placed on all
developments within the area, we believe that it would be an arbitrary and
discriminatory action. And Mr. Yorgason of Capital Development is here, as is Joann
Butler, legal counsel, to address the issue in detail if needed, but, very simply, we ask
for your approval as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as
modified in accordance with their recommendation through a revised preliminary plat to
address all of those issues and simply note that condition number 25 we believe should
be deleted from the preliminary plat recommendation. With that I would answer any
questions or perhaps others of Capital Development's team.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 56 of 88
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Wardle, could you give a little more insight onto the open space there? I
mean is it predominately drainage or is it -- it looks like just grass, but I mean is it just for
drainage or is it some other amenity to that open space?
M. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, the intent is that it will be a linear pathway system.
There will probably be some drainage, but it is not dedicated to drainage. I know that in
some projects within the vicinity they have incorporated both, so there may well be
some drainage applied, particularly in some of the larger areas, but it's also the intent to
have some activity areas that would be designed to be out of any drainage way or such,
but it's primarily to be an amenity for the use of the residents and I certainly would
acknowledge the fact that there may well be some drainage includes.
Nary: When you say activity area, do you mean something that's attractive to the site or
is that just grass?
M. Wardle: Mr. Nary, I think the intent is that there would be tot lot facilities in those
areas similar to -- the third board we have is one that was -- Dave, why don't you just
pull that off there. Baldwin Park, a similar project, provided by Capital Development,
and they, actually, have in that project some activity tot lot areas, so that's the intent for
those two large areas is to have such facilities available to the community.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Powell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: As staff understood the proposed planned development amenities, there was
three tot lot and activity areas. Is that -- do you count The Grove as an activity area?
M. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, in fact, it does. You can see
from the size of all of those that with the separation -- and there will be a pedestrian
facility in this location, but with this separation this provides an amenity for that part of
the community and, then, a fairly strategically located area, too. Appreciate that
clarification.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We do have a sign-up sheet here and so would Mike
Ingram like to provide testimony? He's always been known to have a comment or two.
Did you raise your hand when I swore everyone?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 57 of 88
Ingram: I did. I have been sworn at numerous times.
De Weerd: Probably by me, too.
Ingram: A time or two.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address and, please, spell your last name.
Ingram: Mike Ingram. I live at 4320 North Locust Grove. Last is 1 -n -g -r -a -m and I have
been sworn.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mike.
Ingram: Essentially, I'm here again before you, I realize I'm probably wetting on myself
here, but this development around our little subdivision has -- and I know you're not
supposed to take that into account, but it has adversely affected our property values. I
have just recently sold my home and taken a 40,000 -dollar loss because of this
development. So, I want you to understand that, how this hurts. Two issues I have with
this subdivision at this time. I realize development's inevitable; it's going to happen. We
have not resolved the fencing issue between Heritage and Settlement Bridge. The
developer asked staff to negotiate with them. I don't feel that that's appropriate. They
don't live there. Your ordinance, city ordinary 12-4-10, requires a six-foot solid fence be
constructed. I would ask that you uphold that ordinance and force the construction of
that upset fence for privacy. You're going to hear testimony from another neighbor; she
has some additional information regarding our ditches and our rights to those ditches.
The other issue -- and which has already been stated by staff and it was testified to by
Mr. Freckleton at the P&Z hearing, even pumping your water from another station at a
higher pressure, he testified that Meridian's current water system is at capacity, so
moving water from point A to point B doesn't solve your problem and until such time as
you do have the wells on line for fire services, for the residents, for everything else you
need water for, at least delay this project until you have that on line. And that's all I
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mike. Is there any questions for Mr. Ingram? Thank you.
Okay. Did Terry want to provide testimony? Okay. Steve Sherer. Were you part of the
swearing in process?
Sherer: I was not. You can swear at me personally.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Sherer: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 58 of 88
Sherer: My name is Steve Sherer. I live at 2090 Star Lane, which is on the picture --
one of these lots in here. I'm not exactly sure. I think this one. Maybe that one. But
just to the south of the proposed subdivision. If we extend Mr. Wardle's arguments
regarding the constraints of the water system and limiting his development because of
the constraints in the water system, then, I guess the implication is that the City Council
is compelled, because they can't act arbitrarily or capriciously, they are compelled to
keep approving subdivisions, even though there will not be any running water for them.
I don't see the logic in that argument and I did want to point that out to you, Madam
Mayor and the Councilmen, as part of our discussion. I believe that the Settlement
Bridge Subdivision as proposed is too high density. It is -- it meets the requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan, but I would like to point out, Madam Mayor and, Council -- I
just wanted to set that map up for you, because Locust Grove is this road right here.
This road is Meridian Road. ACHD has that planned for a five -lane road. This road is, I
believe Linder, and slated to be a five -lane road, as is this one, which I believe is Black
Cat. So is Eagle Road. Locust Grove Road -- Locust Grove Road in ACHD's plan is
only going to be a three -lane road. That density that you find on the other north -south
corridor roads are fine at R-8, but the density here -- I think City Council members and
Madam Mayor, you need to take special -- take special concerns for and attention for,
because that will only be a three -lane road. In the addition, this is our low density R-1
subdivision. This subdivision here is an R-4 subdivision. Havasu Creek is an R-4
subdivision. And to the south we already have Heritage Commons Subdivision, which
is developed as a planned unit development, but it's an R-8. Now, it's very important to
keep this corridor carefully planned with traffic. You have high density use right here
and right here. You have a church, you have a fire department, and here you have
three schools, so you have teachers, you have employees of the school, you have --
and one of those schools is a high school, so you have several students driving on this
road.
De Weerd: Can you, please, summarize.
Sherer: Can I please summarize?
De Weerd: I'm sorry.
Sherer: Well, I have a few more points to get to. This was one point.
De Weerd: Are you speaking on behalf of a group of people? I can extend your time.
Sherer: Well, not a group of people who are listed, but I bet Terry Ingram would donate
to me her three minutes.
T. Ingram: I would.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Nary: That's fine.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 59 of 88
Sherer: Thank you. So, I think you have to be very careful about the density on Locust
Grove. Also, ACHD in its report noted that the intersection of Locust Grove and
McMillan is already oversubscribed at certain times of the day and this subdivision
would put significant more pressure on that. I realize that you're not ACHD and you're
not -- the roads are not your main concern, but it is a concern that fire and schools have
adequate access. There are — there are applications for an R-8 development. We do
believe that's too dense. And, in addition, they seek to limit their frontage and cram
houses in there even closer. I saw the beautiful picture that they made of the attached
family dwellings, but these are developers and I know they won't recommend -- or won't
guarantee that those -- that those units will look like that. Placing attached single family
units on two very small lots is similar to placing a duplex on a normal sized lot and we
believe that's what's going in there. Regarding -- regarding the southern most lots,
those -- the houses that are built on those lots will directly affect our vision and our site
of the mountains to the north. They will adversely affect our property values. We would
ask that even if, Madam Mayor and Council, you approve this subdivision, that you
would limit the houses along that southern boundary to a single story, so that our
property values are affected less. Finally, I believe we should have a maintenance
easement on our ditch and I think one of our other subdivision members will speak to
that. Also, I think that regarding the water situation, Mr. Freckleton said a year for a
new well and Mr. Public Works director indicated four to six months to running water out
there. I think those estimates are optimistic and, frankly, I don't want to see a hole in
the ground north of my property waiting for water, because there will be problems, there
always are, we'd like to say that we live in a great world that we will be efficient and we
will run smoothly, but it won't happen and until it does happen I don't think you should --
you should approve anymore subdivisions. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Any questions? Okay. Stacy Rambough. Were you
part of the swearing in process?
Rambough: Yes, I was.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Please state your name and address
Rambough: My name is Stacy Rambough. Spelled Rambough. I live at 1760 Star
Lane. It's the subdivision just south of Settlement Bridge. If I could insert a copy to --
De Weerd: To our city clerk there. Thank you.
Rambough: If needed I do have a copy for the developer. It is a letter that I had Nathan
Draper, the manager at Settler's Irrigation summarize a conversation that we had
regarding the guidelines on irrigation easements. It just states that their easements are
typically 20 feet for an irrigation ditch approximately the size of the ditch that's located
on the property just south of there within Heritage place and that the easements are
placed there in order to maintain the ditch to insure that the water is delivered to all the
users and in most cases where the ditch is left open or non -piped, that they ask that the
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 60 of 88
fence or the structures not encroach upon the easement in order to -- and, then, he also
does state that the construction of a wooden fence next to the ditch is hazardous and
should be avoided, especially if burning the banks is a normal practice, which is the
case here within our subdivision. We do burn the ditch banks in order to maintain the
ditch to keep it clear. I also did attach -- there was comments within Planning and
Zoning that it's not going to matter much to us much longer if we were to be annexed
within the city, because we would not be allowed to burn within the city limits. I did
attach two copies of the burning permits. The first copy is the county burning permit,
which I obtained for my personal property. It stipulates the conditions that are needed
to burn within the county limits. I also did the third page at the top it is a city burning
permit, which does allow for burning along fence lines and irrigation. So, I don't see a
problem that if we were annexed within the city that we would not be allowed to burn our
ditch lines and our fence line in order to keep it maintained. This is my major concern is
how I'm going to maintain that ditch. The ditch, where it currently is, is approximately I
would say three feet from the property line where the Settlement Bridge fence would be
placed. It does not give me adequate -- I mean I'm going to be burning down a wooden
fence. It's nice to hear that they are looking for a solid fence, but it would be nice to also
be included within that process, because we are the ones that are going to be directly
affected by it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the ditch, then, on your side of the property?
Rambough: The ditch is approximately three feet within my side of the property.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rambough: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions?
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mrs. Rambough, is the ditch one that's maintained by Settler's?
Rambough: Settler's does not maintain the ditch.
Nichols: Okay. The users maintain the ditch?
Rambough: The users maintain the ditch.
Nichols: Okay. And does Settler's maintain that they have an easement for the ditch or
that it's a user ditch; do you know?
Rambough: His statement to me that the Settler's has the easement.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 61 of 88
Nichols: Okay.
De Weerd: Any further questions, Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Gerald Clark. Sir, have you been sworn in?
Clark: Yes, I have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Clark: My name is Gerald Clark. I live at 4360 North Locust Grove Road. My last
name is Clark, C -I -a -r -k.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clark: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, I have three concerns over this subdivision. One is
the water. They talked about a water shortage for this subdivision of this size. They are
talking about drilling wells for it. This subdivision — I've lived in this subdivision for 35
years in this present home where I live at now and there was approximately 12 homes
in that subdivision when I moved into it and the rest of that land was all vacant, I mean
just farmland. The original wells and such in this subdivision are shallow wells and by
putting other bigger wells in out there, you're going to pull that water table down to
where some of these people in that subdivision will probably have to re -drill. My second
concern is the ditches out there. Along this line -- this is my property right there on the
corner along this line between the two subdivisions, the Heritage and this Settlement
Bridge, there is actually two ditches. There is one large ditch that used to be the ditch
that supplied all the water to all this ground over here before anything was ever there,
any homes or whatever was there. That was later deferred back and come down here
and, then, this concrete ditch to irrigate this over here. But that ditch was used after that
for just a wastewater ditch for all this ground here and our ditch lies about three feet to
the side of that ditch. The property line, actually, runs down the center of that larger
ditch. That larger ditch, now that they are not farming that land, will be a problem. If
they don't fill that in, it's going to be nothing but a mosquito infested bog. My other
concern is the sidewalks. It was brought up here at one of your meeting that we would
be -- the property owners along Locust Grove there would be contacted in the very near
future about sidewalks going along the front of our subdivision for these kids to come
out of this subdivision and get to these schools down here. I'd like to know what has
happened with that. I haven't been contacted and neither has -- or none of the property
owners that I'm aware of have been contacted on it. And that's my concerns. I hope
you consider all that.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 62 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Clark, do
you wish to testify? Okay. Thank you. Is there any other testimony? Would the
applicant like to come up and respond to the issues that were raised.
M.Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Members, again, Mike Wardle, for the record. Let
me just take them somewhat in order. The statement that I made concerning the water
condition was -- unless it's a condition or a requirement imposed on all within the area,
we feel that it is not appropriate that this project be singled out. If there is, indeed, a
problem, the city has the way to address that. We are simply saying that if we have
worked with the city in good faith and have provided the site as necessary and, then, it
becomes the city's control, then, we are at the city's mercy for something that we cannot
control. So, those are issues that, if necessary, if you want to get into greater
discussion, Mr. Yoragson and Ms. Butler could address. But my statement was not to
try and -- it was simply to say that this is an issue. If it is, in fact, a problem, it needs to
be imposed on all of the area. This is not a high-density project. This, in fact, is just
only slightly more dense than what you would have in just good a old same cookie
cutter type subdivision, but we have put higher -- or deeper lots adjacent to the one acre
parcels to the south. It was interesting the suggestion for single story limit came up at
the last hearing, but I'm going to pass this down and let you draw your own conclusion
with regard to the location of their existing homes and the types of buildings and
structures in the back to see if there would, in fact, be any impact on their few or
visibility if homes were allowed to be constructed as they would be in any project. It's
our contention that there should not be any such limit. ACHD did, in fact, approve this
project. Locust Grove through the north Meridian planning effort, we did find and
conclude that Locust Grove, based on projected traffic projections that were studied
twice by ACHD through Washington Group International, concluded that three lanes,
fully improved in the future, would handle that traffic flow, and it was also noted by the
Commission that the roadway will stay in its existing character today, unless the
projects are approved. ACHD would not bring that forward any sooner than the need is
there and that need will be there based on the projects projected under the
Comprehensive Plan by the city. The ditch, as discussed -- and it's kind of interesting
that we would be asked to put up a solid wood fence, I believe was the statement by Mr.
Sherer, as required, and, then, also concerns stated by others for the threat of burning
and we, in fact, are proposing a noncombustible fence and I will provide to you the
example of the hedge link, it's a chain link fence, this would provide a solid screening
fence in a noncombustible form that would provide that screening, but this is one of the
options. We also got the note that the ditch is a user ditch. That ditch does not show
up as an easement on this property, based the on title policy, so it is strictly a user ditch
and the information from Settler's is interesting, but it's not applicable. And so we have
been dealing with the concerns of the planning commission with regard to the type of
fencing. We will deal with that. We will conclude that effort through staff. And, again, I
think in terms of the issues at hand, they have all been addressed. The conditions of
approval and the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission
adequately address that, with simply the exception that we ask for the deletion of
condition 25 in the preliminary plat recommendation. Let me ask if any of -- Mr.
Meddian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 63 of 88
Yorgason or Ms. Butler have any issues. Unless the Council does of them, we can
bring them to the podium.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, did you address the -- apparently there is two ditches, one on
their side of the property and one that went down the center. Will you be tiling that?
M.Wardle: Madam Mayor, they indicated that that ditch is no longer functional. It has
been -- that original purpose was rerouted, so that ditch would be totally abandoned and
probably graded in.
De Weerd: And filled.
M.Wardle: Yes. As it is on their property. We can't really go onto the adjacent
property. If there are any low spots or swales, that would have to be addressed by
those adjacent neighbors. So, from everything that we can control, we definitely will.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would imagine if that's in the center -line that you would have
to fill it well enough to get a fence on --
M.Wardle: Correct.
De Weerd: -- on that area.
M.Wardle: And so I guess if that were the case, we would -- and the neighbors would
like the fence, we would hope that they would cooperate in that effort, so that it can be
adequately placed. We would hope that's the case. But it was interesting in one of the
original -- I guess it was probably the neighborhood meeting when the question of the
fence first came up, we were told that this property -- the Capital Development would
have to provide an easement for the neighbors on their side to be able to maintain the
portion that their own neighbor would not allow them to get to. So, our issue all along
has been we will do everything in our power to address the type of fence, so there is no
threat to their property or to ours. We will provide the screening that the city has, in its
objective in the fencing requirements, but we also expect them to deal responsibly with
their own ditches in a way that they would have the obligation to do so and not try to
impose on us items that we cannot deal with, because it is not on our property. All in
all, Madam Mayor, I think that this project can be completed in a way that the city would
be pleased and improved in accordance with your Comprehensive Plan and we ask for
your approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Staff, I guess I have just a point of clarification on the well. Now, is
the well going to be located on -- at this project?
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, our staff engineer has been trying to
negotiate with the applicant for a while, a week or two. It's one of those deals where we
haven't felt comfortable with the number enough to even bring it to you, so we would like
to have one there, but we haven't come to any agreement on price. As you recall with
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 64 of 88
another well in the Silverstone project, we don't really like to have these open ended
anymore, so this condition number four in the annexation recommendation is exactly
what that is, it looks to me like an open-ended negotiation that will work out some day.
If I could --
De Weerd: So, Brad, just to clarify what you just said is this well is not being suggested
to be donated.
Watson: No, not at all.
De Weerd: And they have to have this well in order to have this development.
Watson: Not this well, but there needs to be an additional water supply to the upper --
to the high pressure zone and that's what I need to explain, because, obviously, I need
to give a basic explanation of the water system out there. Everything east of Locust
Grove Road, roughly, is in a high-pressure zone, everything west is in the low pressure
zone. The low pressure zone has adequate supply right now, so there are similar
projects being approved up and down Locust Grove Road and I would be more than
happy and actually require that staff put the same condition on any project that comes in
from now on on the east side of Locust Grove Road. Some of the neighbors have
testified that Bruce Freckleton said at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
that our whole system is at capacity. That's not quite true. The high-pressure zone --
we are at the straw that's breaking the camel's back. The low-pressure zone is okay.
De Weerd: And that's on the east side.
Watson: On the east side.
De Weerd: Okay.
Watson: What we are trying to do with this option I was describing earlier is take some
of that supply that we have in the low pressure zone and push it up over into the east,
so we are not -- we are not just pushing something from point A to point B for the sake
of this project, it's an option to make this work. Not only this project, but other projects
on the east side. I think there is great misunderstanding on what's going on here. But
my final point is we can go through all the legalities of this and they can get approved,
but when it comes time to build a building and we don't have fire supply or fire protection
out there, there is no way I'm going to release those building permits. I mean that's
what it comes down to. They are going to have an additional water supply before there
is a building permit ever issued.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 65 of 88
De Weerd: That's all right
Bird: Bruce, is this -- or -- Bruce. Brad, is this a temporary fix bringing that over from
the low pressure to the high pressure? And if we are worrying about fire protection, how
are we protecting this existing subdivision? I know of an instance that somebody went in
to get a permit in this existing subdivision and Ada County turned them down, because
of the fact they did not have a fire hydrant within 300 feet. So, in our -- we are -- rurally
we are protecting that area out there. Now how -- so, if it's fire protection, what's the
difference between this one and the one that's going in?
Watson: Councilmember Bird, Madam Mayor, which subdivision are you speaking of?
Bird: Star Lane and the one -- what is it called? Heritage. Heritage.
Watson: Oh, we don't serve that subdivision.
Bird: I know you don't, but you're saying fire protection. We do fire protect it.
Watson: Right. I'm talking about fire flows.
Bird: Okay.
Watson: Not necessarily fire protection in terms of districts. Back to your original
question, is it a temporary thing? Maybe. It depends on the development patterns out
there. It could turn into a long-term thing. I don't know if it will be there 50 years from
now, but for the foreseeable future it would be. It would be installed.
Bird: To follow up, what does Edinburgh and the subdivision up there, have they got
their own wells within the -- how are they being water serviced?
Watson: Councilmember Bird, they are served off the very same line that -- and that's
the point I was trying to make. This is the straw that's breaking the camel's back. We
have served them and we can serve them and Westborough came in and it's five lots
and there is a school there, there is not really that much demand. When you throw
another 300 some odd -- well, close to 300 residential units on, you know, you're just
eating up the capacity and you can only put so many people on a plank to cross a canal
before it breaks and -- any other project that comes in on the east side is going to have
the very same comment until there is additional supply.
De Weerd: Brad, I guess also in the testimony it was talked about all the private wells
and I know we drill really deep, but will it have any affect on the existing wells?
Watson: Madam Mayor, I don't even pretend to play geologist, hydro -geologist, but
ours are much deeper, usually into the third or fourth aquifers below these. Normally, in
the northern part of the impact area they are confined aquifers -- in other words, we are
Meridian City Council
February 24. 2004
Page 66 of 88
artesian pressures, which normally means that they are confined and they don't
interaction with those other aquifers. I can't say that that's going to be the case here for
sure; we haven't drilled a test well yet. It's a long way of saying I don't know. I don't
think so, but I don't know.
De Weerd: It looks like Ms. Butler has additional testimony.
Butler: Thank you.
De Weerd: Were you sworn in at the swearing in process?
Butler: You know, I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Butler: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. State your name and address.
Butler: Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, on behalf of the applicant. A couple of
comments: We have had a couple of discussions -- or I have had a couple of
discussions with your attorney on this and just a couple of comments on the well issue.
I appreciate your comment on the draw down issue. Obviously, that's something the
city will have to, for the neighbors, prove, as they do any well and if that happens with
all of your municipal wells and I think that -- I just mention this for the neighbors, they
are, obviously, protected through that process that you have to go through with the state
agencies. We -- although we have not been able to have the staff quantify it for us what
the -- what the critical need for the water is and that hasn't been quantified, they are
saying that it is. There have been projects approved out in this area where there has
not been a request for a well lot or a source of supply. Now, we are not being asked to
give a source of supply or well, we were asked if we would donate a well lot -- or not
donate, but to give a well lot that would be -- because it's a regional slot, something that
would serve this entire area, it would be negotiated in terms of the purchase price and I
did talk to your attorney about that. Unfortunately -- and he suggested it would be better
if we had that done before we had come to the Council, but the timing was not such that
we could accomplish that. One thing I did suggest -- and more than happy to do this
tonight with the Council, if you want to move into executive session on that, we can
always do that, just to finish that up for staff, so if they want to get that done. But it is --
the site is a regional site, it allows the city to come in and put in a regional source of
supply. We would -- as Mr. Wardle mentioned, we would, then, be held as anybody
else, at the city's time -table and so we do not believe, nobody else in the area has been
asked to stop their developments, we were asked -- we would ask that we would be
approved. It, then, puts the burden on the city to get this done, but it sounds like the
city is trying desperately to get this done and we are more than happy to work with the
city to get the well lot in place, so that they can do the test well and move to get this
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 67 of 88
source of supply in place. We were a little concerned because, as Mr. Wardle said, it
sounds like the city is saying that no one can be served, but I don't necessarily hear that
from Mr. Watson, so we hope that you will work with us, get the well lot in place, and go
forward with that.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Ms. Butler, are you saying that staff hasn't given you the data
to show you that what they are telling you is correct about the water supply? I'm not
understanding.
Butler: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nichols, I will turn to my engineer, but I believe that's the
case. Correct. That's correct.
Nichols: So, would your client be more comfortable if Public Works had adequate time
to present all of the appropriate studies and to do whatever was necessary to show that
to you?
Butler: My client will tell me if I'm wrong in saying this, but I don't think we are saying
that -- if you're saying that this is a critical need, we will take you at your word and help
provide that well lot and help facilitate the city going forward to put in that source of
supply. We are saying that we have not received anything that quantifies the critical
need, but we understand that you're saying that we can work with you to get the well lot
in to facilitate the city going forward.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Ms. Butler, are you stating that you're willing to donate the lot?
Butler: No, we weren't. And the reason for that was this, that the well lot serves the
entire region, and whether the city were to reimburse itself by negotiating with us for the
region -wide well lot by getting reimbursement from other developers that also will be
utilizing this source, that's fine. Or if you were willing to do a reimbursement agreement
with us for that -- I mean that would be fine, but it is not a lot that is necessarily solely for
this development, which is the only reason we say we would not donate it.
De Weerd: Mr. Watson, I guess I have a question on -- is this -- a lot in this area, even
considered in our budget at this point? I mean as I understand it, a lot would have to be
purchased and drilled to -- everything that was approved before now can be serviced,
it's just right now we can't service additional development, because of the situation we
have with our water, but is this even in our budget to consider buying a well site and
drilling a well that we had not anticipated? I understand that service delivery should be
planned for, if we are at capacity and cannot adequately serve this, then, we can budget
for it and plan for it and that's the normal course; correct?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 68 of 88
Watson: Madam Mayor, technically speaking, no, there is -- there is not a budget line
item for -- I don't even know what number this would be anymore. We are up 26, 27,
28, somewhere in there. The one at Westborough I think we are calling 27. So, this
would be 28, which hasn't been budgeted. But if we got to that point and you directed
us, we would work with finance to do what we needed to do, I guess, mid year as far
budget amendments.
De Weerd: I guess it's just like our sewer, we are not ready to -- when we don't have
budget and planned for that sewer, it happens when it — when we have plans for that.
Watson: Right.
De Weerd: I guess I find this unusual that we haven't really heard this kind of request
that --
Watson: Madam Mayor, I think we are losing site of what I opened up with. We think
we have a solution that we can take and run with and we do have budget for that in our
line extensions program. The only thing is that, yeah, I guess that does put the control
back in the city's hand, but that's better than having a drop dead date where we have to
have a well drilled by. I mean it has to be a cooperative thing back and forth.
De Weerd: Well, no, I appreciate that you as a staff are trying to accommodate this, but
as we look at our service needs, we can't -- we can't accommodate every single thing
that walks in the door at risk of something else and I guess that's all I'm saying is we
have a budget process and a planning process and this isn't anticipated. The amount of
growth out in that area has not been anticipated or it would have been in our budget
process, because we are obligated to the property owners to provide service in a logical
manner and it just seems like the tail is wagging the dog.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And maybe Ms. Butler wants to address this, but I guess to follow up on what you
have said and what Mr. Watson said, I guess my understanding of what Mr. Watson's
proposal is is a compromise to allow this developer to begin working on the project, but
without those conditions we'd just turn it down, because we don't have the capacity to
serve this project right now. So, unless -- I mean our option is agree to the condition,
don't agree to it and drill this well, which we don't have a budget for, or turn it down. It
doesn't sound like that created options for you. The other thing I guess I want to ask,
too, and maybe we can get a little more information, I have seen developments by this
developer and they are always pretty top notch. The stuff that we are looking at is
great. That fence is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. That can't possibly be the best
solution for that ditch. I mean I recognize we have got an issue regarding burning of
ditches and trying to make sure we have noncombustible fencing and not just having a
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 69 of 88
chain link fence and having — I understand that. But it can't possibly be that. I mean
there must be something better than that. I mean I recognize wrought iron fencing is
expensive, but maybe you or someone else can address that a little bit more, but I
mean that's, to me, on the water issue is I think we are stuck with one of three things,
we either turn this down, you can agree to that condition about service, or you can wait
until we get around to building it and we are going to have to turn it down, because we
are not ready to build it yet.
Butler: Mr. Nary -- Joann Butler again. Madam Mayor, if I could say this, then. I think
that we have to keep this in site as well. We have been willing to take the staff on faith
that they are saying that the city is at capacity and thereby working with the city to
provide a well lot so a source of supply can be provided by the city. But If you are going
to deny this project, then, you have do it with a reason -- based on reasonable
standards and we do not have the information, other than staff just saying the word we
are at capacity and, therefore, if you were going to deny it, I think that the city has to
base it on something like a clear engineering outline of -- that you clearly are at capacity
and that this cannot be served.
Nary: Didn't the Mayor already offer you that, to get that information anyway?
Butler: Well, I'm just saying that if -- we are willing to work with the city and not say that
the engineers need to go through that exercise, but I'm saying that if you were to deny
us, I think that the issue there is you need the information on which to base the denial
and in that case I think we do need the information. And the Council needs the
information. In any event, I hope that you will listen to the application and help us work
with you to get that source of supply in. Thank you.
Buckley: I'm Ed Buckley, 1788 East McMillan, just across the road from this
subdivision.
De Weerd: And did I swear you in in the group process?
Buckley: Yeah, but I'm wanting to tell you about -- I'm on my second well --
De Weerd: And if I can just swear you in real quick.
Buckley: Pardon?
De Weerd: If I can please swear in your testimony.
Buckley: Yes.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Buckley: I do.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 70 of 88
De Weerd: Thank you.
Buckley: I have been living where I'm at 25 years and I was there about three years
and my well went dry and I have dug -- had another well drilled and the water outfit
measures it every other year. It's been dropping a foot a year -- the last six or seven
years it's been dropping a foot a year. So, I'm concerned of them drilling wells out
there, that they are going to take all the water we got out of our wells say a hundred feet
deep and --
De Weerd: I understand your concern. I think from what our staff member had said,
when the city goes in and drills for a municipal well, they are far below what a normal
well that is -- that is drilled for an individual resident and I could not even pretend to offer
you any suggestions on that, but, Brad, do you have any response to that? I think Ms.
Butler stated some state code protection and I don't even know what that's about.
Watson: I apologize, Madam Mayor, I had a very brief conversation with the applicant
during his testimony, if --
De Weerd: He was just mentioning that he had to drill a second well for his home and
that well has been dropping a foot a year and I think some of the conversations and
what the applicant stated as being the state protecting their water, do you have any
suggestions or anything to offer --
Watson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I could give some anecdotal -- not even
evidence, but some stories that I have heard -- is the conventional wisdom among the
hydro -geological consultant community, I guess, is that because all of this ag land is
being taken out of production, that the shallow aquifer is dropping and that this is going
to continue to happen. We were in a seminar last fall with the director of water
resources and he echoed those same comments, that -- he didn't attribute it to any one
cause, but he did acknowledge the fact that the shallow aquifer is an artificial aquifer
created by irrigation and that it's a very serious issue that water resources has to
address in the coming years and that's about all I can --
De Weerd: But the city drilling a municipal well, it taps into different aquifers than what
would affect their level of wells; is that not correct?
Watson: Madam Mayor, when we do a test well -- or when we drill a production well,
we do a test pump and we monitor other properly licensed wells that we can find in the
area. Not -- you know, maybe in this area there could be hundreds, so not every one,
obviously, but a representative sample. If these are individual wells to a house, they do
not likely have a water right associated with it, because the state allows an individual
house to just get a drilling permit and put a well in. Those aren't in the catalog. If there
is an irrigation right associated with it, then, yeah, it might have a water right. So, we
could certainly put -- if this gentleman wants to contact me, we can put his name on the
list and when and if we ever do drill in this area, we can monitor his well during testing --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 71 of 88
or during pump testing to see what happens, but we do monitor those wells during
pump tests.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad.
Buckley: I have one more concern.
De Weerd: Okay.
Buckley: I was wondering about the canal going through there, if they are fencing it in
or tiling it or what -- how is the irrigation canal going to work that?
De Weerd: Okay. I believe that was going to be an amenity, you are not tiling it, but it
was a pathway amenity. Okay. They will leave that open.
Buckley: Okay. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Did I swear you in during the process?
Yorgason: You swore me in.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: That's correct.
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address
Yorgason: My name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development. The address is 6200
North Meker Place in Boise. I stand and recognize that we have had a lot of discussion,
not only tonight, but the last probably three weeks on this well site. It was an item of
discussion, certainly at Planning and Zoning -- in fact, about 80 percent of the
conversation was on the well site and since that time we have -- I have had a lot of
discussion with city staff, it's Layne Grady who works under Brad Watson. I have a lot
of items on this well site. I have a folder on it, I have some water details on it, faxed
over is a list of lots of things, location for the test well, the well site itself, agreeing on the
landscaping on the well site, the well house, noise protection, driveway parking,
landscape maintenance, who will do it, and utilities they need, power and other utility
stubs to it and, lastly, the purchase price. And I think we are almost there in our
discussions with city staff. Everything except for price is resolved or nearly resolved.
And even on price I don't think we are that far apart. That's what they have told me and
that's what we feel as well. But we haven't finalized it and it was the recommendation
from staff that maybe we ought to -- if we feel so strongly that we ought to come before
Council to have some discussion. I don't know if it's wise to have all the discussion here
in the Public Hearing, if an executive session is more appropriate, if it's more
appropriate and maybe that's my thoughts tonight is we table this for the next week to
not debate this for an hour or ten minutes, whatever it would take. We have talked to
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 72 of 88
appraisers, we have talked to a lot of folks with -- and I'm not talking about after the
plat's approved what the property is worth, but just what the ground is worth today, farm
ground price, potential for development, plus what impact there is to the homes there
closely nearby. Therefore, those lots would be sold at a lesser price. And that is all that
we have been asking. We are not asking for the final plats approval and we want
improvements in front of the price, we just feel like we are just asking for a fair price and
-- but if it's the Council's decision to table it, so we can have this resolved, we support
that, if that's what you would prefer. If you'd rather go another direction, I look for your
advice, but we feel like we are not asking for a lot, we are just asking for something that
is fair in this instance. I'll answer any other questions you might have, but I feel it was
appropriate I stood here regarding the well site.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Yorgason, one of the things Mr. Wardle showed us by that photograph was I
think his intent was to show us that a majority of the homes along that southern
boundary are towards the southern end of their property, I'm assuming his argument
being there is no need to have a restriction of two story homes, just so they would be
overlooking people's backyards, but most of the time that's what people don't want is
the two story home overlooking their backyard, so would you comment on at least your
feelings about that, because that's a fairly common type of condition we place on most
residential subdivisions is to not have homes overlooking the other people's back yards,
so it sounds like Mr. Wardle didn't want that, so maybe you could give us your insight
as to that, too.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that is our feeling as well. We strongly
feel like we do not want to have those -- that restriction placed upon those lots, for a
couple different reasons. One is we have also intentionally designed those lots deeper
than most residential lots. Those are not a hundred feet deep, they are at least 130 feet
deep, to 160 to 170 feet deep, which significantly helps in that buffering, that separation
of housing, if you want to think of it that direction. The homes will not be up against the
back lot lines, of course. Our homes will be closer to our streets. As we walked up and
down our property line and looked at their properties, there is a variety of housing there.
There is homes that have been there for a long time, well maintained, and a lot of
homes are not even close to well maintained by comparison to what we will be doing
and I don't mean that to offend anyone here, but we will be providing a very nice, high-
end quality subdivision. I was shocked to hear the 40,000 -devaluation, because once
they saw the homes go in, I think that property is going to be worth another 40,000
dollars, not knowing what his site looks like, but our homes will be very quality homes
along that area. We have tried to provide a subdivision that enhances the community, it
will have a lot of amenities to it and that, alone, will also enhance the property values to
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 73 of 88
the surrounding areas, just based on the subdivisions that we have done and the
experience that appraisers have told us.
Nary: Madam Mayor, if I could?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, Mr. Yorgason, I guess maybe, then, one of the thoughts I had is -- then,
what you're saying makes some sense, but maybe what, I guess, to provide, again,
some buffering -- again, that's usually the same concern everyone has is having a
second story overlooking their back yard and sort of inhibiting their usage of their back
yard, but since these lots are deeper and a majority of the homes that are currently on
this site to the south are more towards the front, that doesn't mean they will always be
there, but maybe I guess as a compromise, what would you think about saying -- having
a larger buffer between your lots and the back fence, so they aren't overlooking if they
want to be two story or if they didn't want to be two story -- if they wanted to be a single
story you would not have to have such a large buffer. Do you think that would work?
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, one question comes to my mind. Do you
have an idea of what that buffer would look like? Because we have already -- we think
we have thought through this a little bit, we haven't just given lots that are a hundred
feet deep or shallow, deep lots -- I mean there is ideas of landscaping, we can make
sure there is some trees when these homeowners landscape their yards. In our
covenants we can require some additional trees and not two foot trees, we require
significant landscaping on all these properties, but that way that the properties when
they are built, because there is no concern until there is a home and once they are
landscaped -- and that's one idea, but we think we have already put some thought into it
with the -- with the separation. I don't know if you're thinking a different number than we
have already proposed, but --
Nary: Something like that. I mean I think that's fine and the other thing, Mr. Yorgason, I
mean as I said before, I mean I have seen many of the projects your company has
developed and they are all very top notch, but could you talk about that fence a little bit?
I mean -- really, I know a lot of times I just -- but it really -- I have seen a lot better and
I'm sure you have, too. I can't imagine that's the best you can come up with is a chain
link fence with that Christmas tree. That's just -- I'm sure there has got to be better
alternatives.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that is correct. We don't feel any different
than what you just said. That's why I think staff was a little confused on our position on
this Hedge Link product. When we went to the Planning and Zoning Commission we
hadn't yet received all the information on the Hedge Link, it was just something we
came across at the National Homebuilders Convention in Las Vegas a few weeks ago.
Once we had it -- the product actually shipped to us, got some more information and
looked at the website -- not our favorite choice.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 74 of 88
Nary: Okay.
Yorgason: We recognize wrought iron is a really good choice, we have actually looked
at that and this is one of our preferences. That's, actually, the direction we are leaning
right now.
Nary: Okay.
Yorgason: We want to have -- it goes in direct correlation with the higher end homes
we have that will be buffering -- or not buffering, but along that same south boundary of
our subdivision.
De Weerd: Yeah. I don't see higher end homes --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The south border, as Mr. Nary was talking about, with the homes and stuff, I'm
quite well acquainted with that area out there that -- the existing homes and there is a
lot of two stories out there and so on the same token, you worry about the subdivision
and looking into there, there is a lot of big buildings out there that back up -- most of the
houses sit out on the road in that particular area. I don't have any problem with that. I
do have a problem until we get this well site done. I'm not for moving forward with this
subdivision. I think it's -- as Mr. Yorgason stated, we can work this out within a week or
so between staff and them -- I'm not going to get hung out to dry like we did on the last
one. That's my only --
De Weerd: Any other questions. Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council? What would you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If the other Councilmen agree with this, I'd like to see these three continued until
next week and have our staff and Mr. Yorgason or Capital Development workout an
agreement on a well lot out there. I'm not for taking the low density water and moving it
over. I think we have done it one too many times. If we are going to do it, we are going
to have to go with our own well, so that's what I -- I would move, if it's agreeable with the
other two, to continue public hearings 16, 17, and 18 on the Settlement Bridge
Subdivision until March 2nd, 2004.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 75 of 88
Nary: Second, but, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bird, I mean -- or maybe Mr. Watson would be best to answer that. I mean is
one week enough? I mean that really puts the staff in a pretty tight bind to get
information back to us within about two days, really, when you set it over a week.
Would two weeks be better?
Watson: Councilmember Nary, Madam Mayor, Council Members, if you would accept a
written something or other -- if it didn't have to be in your packets by Thursday and we
could meet on Friday, that works for me. But if you want it in your electronic packet by
Thursday at 5:00, then, you better count on two weeks.
De Weerd: Council, I guess staff needs to also consider where we are going to get it
from our budget and that -- I mean this is not a budgeted item and so you need to find
out how you're going to fund it. Of course, it's your decision, but we are supposed to
actually have some kind of oversight of the budget.
Bird: Do you feel comfortable with two weeks, then? Would you rather go to the 9th?
Watson: I think that's more than enough time, Councilmember Bird.
Bird: Okay. If the second agrees, I will change that to March 9th.
Nary: I'd agree.
Bird: 2004.
Nary: I would agree.
De Weerd: Okay. And, staff, you will also bring forth funding?
Watson: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. It's been moved to continue
Items 16, 17, and 18 to March 9th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 03-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.98
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing
Subdivision No. 2 by Initial Point, LLC —1295 West McMillan Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 03-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40
single-family building lots and 7 common lots on 7.98 acres in a proposed
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 76 of 88
R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No 2 by Initial
Point, LLC — 1295 West McMillan Road:
Item 21: Public Hearing: CUP 03-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontage, lot size,
minimum house size and street side building setback in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No 2 by Initial
Point, LLC — 1295 West McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 19, 20, and 21 are all on the same application. If no one
opposes, I will open all three items, 19, AZ 03-028, PP 03-033; and CUP 03-059, for
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2. I'll open the Public Hearing with staff
comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Cobblefield Crossing
Subdivision No. 2, the property just to the south was platted as Cobblefield Crossing
Subdivision No. 1. And as you will see to the east of the black line there is the little
strip and, actually, Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2 does include that little spit of
land that goes out there. It is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary
plat. They have requested R-8 zoning. As you can see, there is nothing that shows up
in the aerial. These are the Baldwin Park Subdivisions, moving up north. We had some
difficulties getting the electronic copies from the applicant in time to get them on the
presentation, so I'm going to have to kind of go back and forth between various media,
so excuse me for a moment. This is the revised layout -- and I'm just going to point out
a couple things to you. You see here the street stubs to the east where prior it was a
cul-de-sac street, as you see here. Just briefly, this, again, is the Cobblefield
Subdivision No. 1 as it adjoins. This begins Cobblefield No. 2. It is a fairly small
development. And by small it's 40 single family building lots and seven common lots on
7.9 acres. This is the landscape plan. We do need to add a condition of approval, if
you choose to act on this tonight, we do need a revised landscape plan. It has not been
included as a condition of approval. This comes forward from the Planning and Zoning
Commission with a recommendation for approval. At the Public Hearing Rod Ralphs of
Initial Point, LLC, testified in favor of the applicant. There were two neighbors that
spoke in opposition to the project, in particular about concerns about irrigation water.
There were no changes to staffs initial recommendations -- maybe we will have to say
there was some confusion when this was at the Planning and Zone Commission.
Planning staff had not received a copy of a revised plat, so there was a little bit of last
minute evaluation. We have met with the applicant since, then, to discuss some
concerns and, again, that goes back to this layout and the concerns that -- the
unanswered question at that time was whether or not there was sufficient open space in
this application to compensate for what Cobblefield No. 1 was losing. As I said, there
was kind of a -- there was a 50 foot stretch that went up there and they had a workout
station and kind of pathway amenity in that stretch that was -- had been modified by this
application and because we hadn't seen the revised submitted from -- the planning staff
wasn't aware of a revised submittal, we were unsure if it met the necessary
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 77 of 88
requirements. We have gone through in detail with the applicant and we are now
satisfied that they have met the amenity requirements and open space requirements for
Cobblefield No. 1 and Cobblefield No. 2, both separately and together, that we are
convinced they have met those minimum amenity requirements of two per subdivision.
So, we have satisfied that. And those were the primary outstanding issues and I think
we have resolved that. The applicant has provided -- they asked me to show -- they are
actually proposing some attached units also in this location and through here and they
may yet tonight — there was some discussion about whether some of these units would
be attached as well and I do have their attachment -- copy of their attached units.
These, again, are attached single-family dwellings. The last one you saw there was two
garages out in front. On this one garage will face one direction and, then, the other
garage will face the corner, so this is kind of a different design. Or it will face a shared
or a common driveway. So, it would go around the corner. Let me briefly point out how
that would be. So, like if you had one that was facing out this way, the other one -- the
garage would come in from this location and might have a driveway out there. Or if this
were a common drive, then, they would each come off -- have a side -loaded garage off
that common drive and, then, this one would face front. And I think with that I will end
staffs presentation.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Anna, can you give me the date of this revised plat, please?
Powell: It should be signed on the 12th of -- that can't be right.
De Weerd: Maybe the applicant can give us the date.
Powell: Pardon us. The revised plat is dated the 12th of November.
Bird: '03? '02? '01? Or what?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Powell: '03. It hasn't taken us quite that long to get through this process
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't even know if you would know this answer just off the top of your head, but
I'll ask it anyway. Although this, really, isn't technically in -full, it has a lot of feel like the
developments that we have -- that are built or being built along Ten Mile, kind of a small
kind of niche sort of alternative housing, some patio homes and some attached houses,
but I don't recall what level of density those are and I don't know if you recall at all
whether this is comparable to that, because it seems like it's still fairly low density in
relation to the size, but --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 78 of 88
Powell: The only one that's gone through since I have been here was the vertical mixed
use one where there was apartments on one portion of it and, then, apartments above
commercial on the other, so you may need to ask the applicants on the other side of the
street, because I don't know --
Nary: Yeah. I was thinking of Moser Farms and --
Powell: I'm sure they can tell you off the top of their head. I cannot. I'm sorry.
Nary: That's fine. That's good. Thank you.
Powell: It is the same developer. I assume you knew that.
Nary: Yeah.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant's
representative here? Were you sworn in at the beginning of this process?
Ralphs: I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ralphs: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Ralphs: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of
Initial Point, LLC, the developers of Cobblefield Two Subdivision. My address is 2730
North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian. I want to just talk a little bit about the project.
This is actually phase two of the Cobblefield project. Cobblefield One was a 15 acre
piece that comes in right here, as explained by staff, and it had an included flag lot here,
which we had a greenbelt type of a parcel with a meandering landscape path to it.
What we have done to address some of the open space concerns -- and, again, I'd just
like to emphasize the staff has recognized that we have met and -- we have met those
amenities, but I want to talk a little bit about those. We have got a continuing theme
through this subdivision, keeping along with a steeper bit of a roof pitch, more of a look
like the north end of Boise, providing some amenities here in this neighborhood wherein
the people from Cobblefield One and Cobblefield Two would be able to share in these
amenities. Right here in this area that I'm indicating with the pointer towards the
southeast portion of Cobblefield Two we have an area that is going to be planned and
as staff had indicated, we will be submitting a revised landscape plan. But we will have
a soccer field in here. It's actually quite a long space there and we would be putting a
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 79 of 88
soccer field in there with a goal for the youth who are going to be residing in the
subdivision. We will also have an area in here in Cobblefield Two for a tot lot,
somewhere in there with some playground type of equipment. We will continue with the
theme or the original plan of maintaining a greenbelt pathway system, an additional
amenity, that would actually be accessible by Cobblefield One and Cobblefield Two, but
you will see we have meandering pathways that come up through here and they work
northward and, then, they tie in here to this cul-de-sac piece on the east side of
Cobblefield Two and it will wander up and it will, again, have access all the way up here
to McMillan. We have not included -- and, again, where we have met the requirements
for open space amenities, we have not included any of the landscaping or any of those
things on McMillan as part of the space count. I want to talk a little bit about the density
we are going for -- the application is for an R-8. We have 40 lots. We have one existing
home. You can see here at the entrance of the subdivision coming off of McMillan,
there is a large lot right here; that is where the existing structure currently is. The
comment by staff about the attached homes, I just want to identify those lots. We
actually have ten attached homes going in. Over here we have one, two, three, four,
and five and, then, six, seven, eight and, then, over here we have nine and ten.
Everything else would be single detached. Could we go back to that rendering, the
color rendering, please? That describes what we are going to do. If we could zoom out
just a little bit. This actually looks, as you drive by, like a single-family residence, but, in
actuality, you have a duplex -- here is your entrance to the one side. Here is your
entrance to the second side. And, as staff properly pointed out, there would be a
common driveway -- thank you -- that would go along here with a side entry garage in
the rear of this design, but has some very attractive lines from the street and we would
be using that attached town -home look for the project and those lots that I pointed out. I
think the other question you had was about the revised plan. We had that for November
12th of '03, not year 2000, but it was '03, and it's just a continuation of what we have for
Cobblefield One. We feel like with the amenities that we have and with what Meridian is
trying to do out there in the north end to try and create neighborhoods that have an all-
inclusive feel, so they are not really having to get out on the roads and travel out to
parks, but by providing significant amenities within the project that you're able to keep
people in there and create the feeling of neighborhood within the project and that's what
we have tried to do. That's all I have got. I know there is some questions about water.
We have addressed those and we have met with staff. I wanted to go ahead and open
that can of worms right now. We have met with Nathan Draper with Settler's Irrigation.
We have correspondence from him addressing the concerns about drainage -- well, no,
the letter from Nate addressing the water supply, what has been historically done for the
remaining agricultural pieces out there. Could we go back to that layout of just the -- it
would be the aerial. If we could go to the aerial. Okay. Excellent. And I'm not even
going to pretend -- I have walked these properties, but I'm not even going to pretend to
be able to identify all of the ditches from this picture, but we have a source ditch that
comes off -- you know, there was a main source here, a main lateral that comes off,
there is a source that comes down here and I wanted to point out this property here to
the -- in here in the middle belongs to Brian and Marge English, who are here this
evening, and here to the south we have Allen and Tonya Converse and, then, this area
here that I'm indicating is Cobblefield One. This piece of property belongs to Mr.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 80 of 88
Ebinghouse. What we have proposed and what we have at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting was we had discussed the feasibility of providing pressurized
irrigation to these two pieces, because they would be continuing, at least for the time
being, as agricultural. Upon further review and in visiting with these landowners, then,
also in visiting with Settler's, what we are proposing to do is to just go ahead and
maintain what has been historically done and that is there is a supply point right here at
the two properties right in this area and it would be available to them as they have done
historically. There was a bit of concern and frustration over the semantics of the original
letter we got out of Settler's, that it wasn't specific enough and I think we are still going
to come back with another letter that's even more specific, but the one that has come to
us in the meantime has indicated that Settler's was very willing to provide the 39 miner
inches within the day of rotation and Mr. English and anyone else who wishes to
comment can illustrate that further. What it boils down to in a nutshell is that we are
going to be able to provide historically the type of water that has been provided to these
properties in the past. Okay. We've also worked with Settler's in making sure that the
control of the flow coming off of the head -gate does get shut off. One of the concerns
that happened last year is as Cobblefield One was going in and some of the other
developments there you're showing to the south was the water was always in the ditch
and it was very difficult for the property owners to go in there and maintain and keep the
weeds out of it. So, we feel we have got a control on that as well. I wanted to point out
one other area here that was a point of concern from last summer and that was the
drainage. Historically, the water would come down here -- and, Brian, you're going to
have to clarify if I stub my toe here a little bit, but there would be a waste or drain ditch
that would wander here through what Frank and Andrea Fisher's place use to be and,
then, would dump out here towards the borrow pit before crossing over here to the Buse
property, which is going to be Bridgetower. Well, for whatever reason, there was not --
this was not provided for last year and so there was a significant accumulation of water
between this and some other problems with the developments that were going on here
last summer. We have addressed that. We have met with staff, we have met with
Settler's, and we are currently working on two ways to address the drainage issues.
Here where Cobblefield One is now, that ditch is gone, okay? There is roads and there
is lots and there is improvements in there. What we have done, though, at this point
here where the drainage would start is -- there is two proposals. The one that we are
looking for right now and with Settler's approval is that we would go ahead and take that
drainage and put it into the Murdoch source that feeds the Buse property across the
street. Now, if Mr. Buse or Bridgetower agrees with that in a letter, in writing, then,
Settler's is okay with that. And so they would accept the drainage water, whatever is
not used here or whatever drains off in here would go in there and be -- it would join
over here in the Buse property to the west. That's one option. If, for whatever reason,
Mr. Buse or for whatever reason it does not happen, then, we are prepared to put in
piping along here that would carry this water out to the same point where it was draining
before, before dropping out and underneath of North Linder. Okay? And I think that's it
for now. Any questions?
De Weerd: Questions?
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 81 of 88
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Ralphs, I mean do you know -- the question I had asked earlier about the
level of density of those other types of developments and this has the same feel to me,
like the ones that are over on Ten Mile, and I think Mr. Campbell's development was the
one across the street on the -- I guess the east side of Ten Mile, but I don't know if you
have any recollection about those other housing developments and the level of density
of those.
Ralphs: I certainly do and I can respond to that. What we have got over there on Ten
Mile were two projects that we had worked. One is Mosers Farm and the other one is
called the Courtyards. The Courtyards, if the Council will remember, involved a number
of four-plexes or attached town -homes or duplexes and the density that we are looking
at in here is not anywhere near that. We are not going with anything that could even
resemble or be referenced as a four-plex. So, we have town -homes in there. The size
of the lots, as compared to Mosers, I believe are somewhat larger, but we are still going
with some attached homes. It's going to have a similar look. We kind of like that and
we think that's what the neighborhoods are going for right now and, you know, from a
marketing standpoint that's why we are going to stick with that. So, the density is R-8,
that's what we have applied for, and -- okay. So, similar look, but I don't think it's going
to be nearly as small.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Ralphs: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I have two people signed up to testify. Tonya Converse. Okay. You
must be Brian English.
English: And I'm not sworn either, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
English: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
English: Brian English, 4650 North Linder Road in Meridian, Idaho. As Rod said, this
property here. The drain issue I think is being addressed. There is one other issue
along that fence line and we want to make sure it doesn't recur here. Our head -gate
comes off here, flows along McMillan Road to the point where the red line comes across
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 82 of 88
the diagonal and comes down. Head -gate 29 is this line here. It's the Murdoch. Where
the Murdoch intersects our back line we have a ridge -- unfortunately, when they put the
fence in on the back of Converse's property they lowered that ridge, so that if she flood
irrigates this year, she's going to be flooding Cobblefield One, as well as her own
property. We are asking that that be part of the thing to get remedied as well. I know
that's part of the previous subdivision approval, but I ask that that not happen here, they
not lower the ridge between the two ditches. They are going to eventually -- and I don't
know what their timing is -- pipe this. They will have to pipe the -- what's in here now.
We have not seen the plans on how they are going to do the irrigation. We are still
working with Nathan. I was down at his office yesterday and Nathan is ready to commit
the 39 miner inches for the next two years based on the development and use in the
area. After that time what's going to have to happen is these outlying properties, this
property here, and some of the other ones up and down the ditch that are small acreage
properties, what they will be doing is they will come -- he's on a different head -gate, but
they will combine the flows, so that we each get a full use of water. That's a schedule
that has to be worked out. We do not have the letter signed to work all of that out yet
and I'm asking that we hold -- Planning and Zoning recommended that as part of that
you have both Converse's and English's signature on the -- before you give final plat
approval, I'm asking that you hold to the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. We
request that when they go to develop this, both Converses and us have horses on the --
and livestock on the property. We get a little bit of notice, so that if we need to move
our animals and they want to work on the fence and stuff, we get a little advance notice,
so -- we want to work with them, because the last thing we want is one of our animals
hurt or one of them loose or one of their workers hurt because our animals got loose, so
I think that we can work together. I ask that they include in their covenants the right to
farm. Right now we still work -- we do a cutting of hay, we have three steers -- two or
three steers every summer on the property, just -- I know they have flies. We do
management, we do what we need to do, but, still, people will complain. So, I ask that
their covenants have the right to farm. And one thing we don't have worked out yet is
when they tile our supply line from this point where it goes onto their property to ours,
there is going to be cleanouts every 300 feet. Right now there is a waste points that we
can return the flow back to the ditch right here. Nathan has indicated that there is going
to have to be some type of control in that area somewhere. I need to be able to have
access to it if I'm going to control flows to our property. I am the water master right now
for 28, but we need to be able to — if I have hay on the ground, not have the water come
across the back of my property when -- thank you, Councilman Bird, you know, you're
aware we don't want to be flooding our hay. That's my primary concern is right now we
are working with both Settler's and Cobblefield to develop and work out an irrigation
issue, but it's not done yet and we ask that before everything is final and approved that
it be done.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 83 of 88
Bird: Mr. English, would you take that pointer and show me the route that you get your
irrigation? Either Ralph's -- I didn't understand him right or -- where do you come in and
where do you drain?
English: Councilman Bird, the water comes off the ditch right here. You can see the
tree. There is a concrete ditch that parallels McMillan Road, right now there is a
concrete -- it goes underneath a portion of that -- there used to be an access road here,
it goes under that and, then, there used to be a two-way box, the water that would come
to this property and this property, which are now part of Cobblefield, could be diverted
there or it would go down and there is a three way box, one way to the ditch, one way to
supply Ebinghouse, which the water comes down and comes in here and, you know?
One ditch goes this way, one ditch goes around the home lot, flood irrigates there. You
can see the corrugates. Ours would come along this red diagonal line, enter the
northeast corner of their property, flow across the back of our property, across the back
of Converse's property, and, then, the ditch used to follow the property line over to
about here, go back across to the north property line, up out -- and this line -- bright line
you can see across here, that's, actually, a waste ditch where it goes across what's
going to be a part of Bridgetower and out to Settler's canal. Along this area here you
have both the main canal of Settler's and you're going to have the power line installed
this summer and so you can see part of the reason why we have concern with our
water, sir.
Ierom..
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. English.
English: Thank you, Mayor de Weerd, thank you, Council.
De Weerd: Mrs. Converse. Have we sworn you in?
Converse: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Converse: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Converse: Tonya Converse, 4550 North Linder. I think pretty much everything was
covered. I spoke with Rod prior to the meeting and we went over the drainage that they
are working on right now, because our drainage was completely filled in and so they are
going to work on that and they are going to try to provide us with the water that we
needed and I spoke with Rod and Doug and they said that they are going to go ahead
and fill the ground that they cut to get the fence in, they are going to go ahead and fill
that in when they work on the drainage. So, I think they handled all my concerns.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 84 of 88
De Weerd: Well, good. We like having these long meetings, so we can work everything
out in back; right? Okay. Is there any other testimony on this application? Okay. Does
the applicant have anything you wanted to add? Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I take it from Mr. Ralph's not wanting to add anything, then, the concerns that Mr.
English raised or the things that he would like to see, you don't any objection to that?
Ralphs: None whatsoever.
Nary: Okay.
Ralphs: I just wanted to point out it's been customary for us when we have come before
you with other projects to put in the notice of the right to farm, not only in the covenants,
but also on the final plat, so everyone knows about it and, then, we are just going to
continue to work with Mr. Draper at Settler's making sure that everyone has water and
the drainage they need.
Nary: Great. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The first thing I'd like to do is close the public hearings on 19, 20 and 21, AZ 03-
028, PP 03-033, CUP 03-059.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on 19, 20
and 21 for Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve AZ 03-028, annexation and zoning for
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2, to include all staff, applicant, and public
comments.
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 85 of 88
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-028. Is there any
further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 20.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: I move that we approve PP 03-033, preliminary plat for Cobblefield Crossing
Subdivision No. 2, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments and to include a
condition of a landscape plan as noted by staff.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-033. Is that to
make sure that the conditions state the right to farm act? I didn't notice that being a
condition, so just to make sure that's on there. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay.
Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 21. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve CUP 03-059, Conditional Use Permit
for Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision No. 2.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-059. Is there any
further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22: Ordinance No. AZ 03-026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to C -G and I -L zones for
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 88 of 88
Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte — south of East Fairview
Avenue, and west of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item 22 is Ordinance 04-1066 on -- well, Mr.
Clerk, will you, please, read this by title onlv.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1066, an
Ordinance finding that Jack G. Cortabitarte and Isaac F. Cortabitarte, the owners of
certain real property generally located on the south side of Fairview Road, halfway
between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road, State Highway 55, Meridian, Idaho, the
rear portion of the property to be used for a parking lot expansion for Food Services of
America, and the front portion of the property to be -- is proposed for C -G zoning and
which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada,
State of Idaho, and have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and
that the said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Light
Industrial District (I -L) and General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G), and declaring
that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of
Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or
parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to
the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of
Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed
with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax
Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section
63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 04-1066
by title only. Bruce, if don't -- if you want this read in its entirety, you're not invited back.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I ask unanimous consent that we read Item 23, ordinance on Razzberry Crossing
before we make a motion.
Item 23: Ordinance No. AZ 03-034 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for
proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of
East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 04-1067 by title
only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1067, an
Ordinance finding that Carl Reiterman and Bonnie Reiterman, the owners of certain real
property generally located on the west side of Locust Grove, south of East McMillan
Meridian Clty Council
February 24, 2004
Page 87 of 88
Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, and which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land
be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential
District (R-8) and Limited Office District (L -O) and declaring that said land, by proper
legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada,
State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict
herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified
copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County
recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of
Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Council, would you like to make a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move the approval of Items 22 and 23, Ordinance No. 04-1066 for Cortabitarte
Annexation and Ordinance No. 04-1067 for Razzberry Crossing, with suspension of
rules.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Items 22 and 23,
Ordinance 04-1066 and 04-1067. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr.
Clerk, will you please call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I will be having Peggy call a meeting between Mr. Bird,
myself, and CGA and the County. I will ask Mr. Bird to also attend that. I know Peggy
had gotten copies to each of you on this proposal for professional services on the site
selection process for City Hall. Would you like that on the agenda next week? Is that
something, Keith, that we can discuss and the next steps at that meeting?
Bird: I think we need to discuss the next steps. My opinion, Mayor, is that -- that I don't
think we are quite ready for something like that. We need to get a little farther down the
line ourselves.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Because we have no idea of what site we need, really, until we get --
Meridian City Council
February 24, 2004
Page 88 of 88
De Weerd: But you all did get that?
Bird: Yes, we did.
De Weerd: It may be as we firm up our space needs that this person dovetail at the end
of that, so at some point if you will make sure to read that and get comments to Keith,
we can also have that as part of the discussion. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYO M,OY DE WEERD
r
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, ITY-CL
liffi i r�tstatit`pP�4`�\`
¢DATE4-i 6 i 04-
DATE
APPROVED