HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 03-09CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Chris Mortonson Troup 61
3. Community Invocation by Pastor Steve Moore with Cherry Lane
Christian Church: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve Amended
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
018 Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT
to C -G zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eagv / Ruwe by BRS Architects
— southwest comer and southeast comer of North Eagle Road and
East Ustick Road: Approve
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda —March 9, 2004 Page 1 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 hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 88&4433 at least 49 hours prim to the public meeting.
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve
F. Development Agreement: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation
and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda
Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road: Approve
6. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department — Brad Watson
1. Discussion of Water Division Space Analysis Study:
Continue to proceed the study
B. Mayor's Office
1. City Hall Site Selection Process: Approve Hudson
Company $15,989.00
2. Discussion of City Mission Statement: Attorney to
prepare resolution
3. Mid month draw — payroll - notify
C. Planning and Zoning Department — Anna Powell:
Temporary use for Daycare Tara Gorton — Proceed with
Miscellaneous Application
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. Tabled from March 2, 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:
Approve
9. Tabled from March 2, 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
Meridian City Council Agenda —March 9, 2004 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Mmidian,
Anyone desiring accoannodation for disabilities related to documents andira hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and south of West Chinden Road:
Approve
10. Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
11. Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
12. Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
13. Public Hearing: PP 03-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18
building lots and 3 other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-0 zone for proposed
Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering — north of West Pine
Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-069 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 18 residential 4-plex buildings on one lot in a L-
0 zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering —
north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
15. Public Hearing: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-
4 to C -N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by
Kevin Howell — north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian
Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 16, 2004 Meeting
16. Public Hearing: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-
N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin
Howell — north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Continue Public Hearing to March 16, 2004 Meeting
Meridian City Council Agenda —March 9, 2004 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desmng accommodation far disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-0433 at least 48 hours prim to the public meeting.
17. Public Hearing: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps
and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for
proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell — north of
West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Continue Public
Hearing to March 16, 2004 Meeting
18. Public Hearing: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
140.97 acres from RUT to R4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon
Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of East McMillan Road
and east of North Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to March
23, 2004 Meeting
19. Public Hearing: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461
single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140.25 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision
by Farwest, LLC — north side of East McMillan Road and east of North
Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing for March 23, 2004 Meeting
20. Public Hearing: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes,
and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths
exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of
East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Continue Public
Hearing to March 23, 2004 Meeting
21. Ordinance No. 04-1069 RZ 03-012 Request for a
Rezone of .85 acre from R-15 to 0-T for proposed Strickland
Subdivision by Roy Strickland —1225 Main Street: Approve
22. Ordinance No. 04-1070 AZ 03-023 Request for
annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road: Approve
23. Miscellaneous Items
Meridian City Council Agenda —March 9, 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 hearing
please contact the Cay Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting March 9 2004
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M.,
Tuesday, March 9, 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, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, 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. Good evening. I will go ahead and call the Tuesday, March 9th,
regular agenda meeting for City Council to order. It is 7:17. 1 would like to welcome you
all here with us tonight and we will start tonight's meeting with roll call.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. One of the two new things that we have added to our agendas
are the Pledge of Allegiance and also the community invocation. Tonight we have Chris
Mortonson here from Troop 61 who will lead us in the pledge. Please stand.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Steve Moore with Cherry Lane
Christian Church:
De Weerd: Chris, thank you. I'd like to give you a pin of Meridian for leading us. Thank
you. Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led by Pastor Steve
Moore with the Cherry Lane Christian Church.
Moore: Would you bow your heads? Our Father, God in heaven, we thank you for your
many, many good gifts. We thank you tonight as this meeting commences. We thank
you that we live right here in this place in the world. God, we recognize that you are the
giver of so many gifts and we live in a place that is wonderful, just wonderful to live.
Father, on behalf of the citizenry, part of what makes it wonderful is the hours that are
given by community servants such as these and their staff and volunteers. I thank you
for these Council members who give so much of their time for a very little
reimbursement. I thank you for our Mayor and for her vision for this community. I thank
you for the public servants and other employees and what they do above and beyond
the call. I'm grateful, God, that they study the issues and prepare themselves for a
meeting like tonight. We thank you that we have been blessed, just as today's
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 2 of 78
newspaper reminded us, with new jobs, apparently, coming to our community and just
the residual and the fallout of that. I pray, God, that as a community, as a city, that we
would be mindful of your blessings and we would be neighborly. I pray that the issues
tonight that are facing this community that must be decided and even though there will
probably be differences of opinion, that all who offer those opinions would try to look at
it through the eyes of the others that would be impacted. I pray for peace in that sense
for our community and for prosperity. I pray, God, that not only would you bless us as
you have in terms of new jobs, but you would also in your Holy Spirit call us to see that
the way we live and the way we treat one another is, indeed, our greatest asset to love
our neighbor as ourselves. I pray for your blessing on this meeting that it would benefit
your will in this community, in the name of Christ, our Savior, I pray, Amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Moore. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move on the agenda that w
which is Planning and Zoning, the discussion
23, which is from the Mayor's Item No. 23, an
move that we adopt the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
e add under Department Reports Item C,
on a variance for a day care, and also No.
FYI, of the Mayor. And with that I would
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda with the noted
amendments. Mr. Bird, I did have an item three under the Mayor's office, just to bring
you up on a mid month draw that is being -- will be tested this month out of finance. If
we could also add that to your motion.
Bird: The motion agrees with that, if the second does.
Rountree: I agree.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
Meridian City Council
March 9. 2004
Page 3 of 78
— southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and
East Ustick Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
F. Development Agreement: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation
and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda
Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Item No. 5 is the Consent Agenda. We did have the legal description
submitted for the record on Item 5-13, just per our city attorney's memo on March 4th. Is
there any discussion? I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to
sign and the clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 4 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department — Brad Watson
1. Discussion of Water Division Space Analysis Study:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 6 is department reports. We will start with A,
Public Works Department, discussion of the Water Division Base Study Analysis.
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. This may turn out to be a
relatively short discussion. Since I sent the memo to you for the meeting two weeks
ago, the Mayor and I and our water superintendent Rick Clinton met with
representatives from BSU. Contrary to the letter they had previously sent to us and
included in your packets, they are looking at relocating off that site in fairly short order
and I think, given that memo that was sent to you several weeks ago, we are probably
looking at only one option now, unless the Council directs me otherwise, and that option
would be to proceed with a space analysis of the existing building on site. We did have
preliminary discussions with the parks department about utilizing that site and I think the
water department's 20 -year plan, they would fully utilize that site, so I'm not sure that
option exists anymore for the parks department. Is there anything else, Mayor that I
should add from that meeting?
De Weerd: No. I will be following up. A letter has been drafted and will be sent shortly
to just recap the conversation and some of the discussion items as well. Any questions
from Council? Okay. Do I have action? A motion.
Rountree: Does it need an action?
De Weerd: Oh, you are going to proceed with the study for the current site?
Watson: Right. Madam Mayor, unless there are any objections, I will just proceed with
negotiating a scope of services with BRS to examination the existing site only.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad.
B. Mayor's Office
1. City Hall Site Selection Process:
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 5 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. Item B is from the Mayor's office. You had in front of you last week
the proposal by the Hudson Company to conduct a site selection process for a city hall
site. Is there any questions or discussion on this item?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree we need to get onto it, but I also think we need to find -- before we get
after the site, we need to get a lot better footprint of what building we are going to have
to put on, so we have a better idea of how big a site we will need. We have got a pretty
good idea after you and I met with the architects and Ada County , but I think that might
be a little early to start, but in some ways I don't think it is. So, whatever the other
Councilmen think. I did not -- looking through there and I could have missed it. I did not
see a cost on this deal. It's the last page? I'm missed it. Okay. So, anyway, that's --
I'd interject that, that without knowing the footprint and exact -- how much acreage we
need or, you know, it's kind of tough to go find a site if we don't know exactly what we
need.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Mr. Bird, I did talk to ZGA today and we will be meeting again
next week. There was just one item that was left to discuss and that was based on the
IT space that was needed. They have been getting information from Ada County and
the Hudson group has been working with ZGA through their vision process and
marketing analysis for the Old Town area, so they have a good working relationship and
they wouldn't commence with this selection study until we had a footprint anyway. It
would just be to approve this and kind of start setting some time lines to this process.
Any further questions? What would Council like to do? The study itself will be around
16,000 dollars. 15,989 dollars.
Bird: That's not to exceed?
De Weerd: Not to exceed.
Bird: I finally found it. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor, were you looking for a motion for that?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Nary: Well, I would move that we, then, proceed with the space study as proposed by
the Hudson company for the City Hall site selection process, pursuant to this proposal
for an amount not to exceed 15,989 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 6 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. It was moved and seconded to approve the site selection process for
City Hall by Hudson Company, not to exceed 16,000. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Discussion of City Mission Statement:
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Council. The next item is discussion of the City
Mission Statement. I reported back to you last week that the directors have come
forward -- and, I'm sorry, the copy that is in front of you didn't have the amendments that
were made. The original statement was Meridian is a caring community that promotes
its position as a premier place to live, work, and raise a family. It has been amended
and that new language is: Meridian is a vibrant and caring community -- so, they added
vibrant and -- right there. A vibrant and caring community that promotes itself -- so we
deleted its position -- promotes itself as a premier place to live, work, and raise a family.
The values will be discussed at the leadership module next Friday and so we will ask for
action on that. But we would like you to also consider action this evening in asking the
attorney to move forward with a resolution to adopt the mission and the vision that was
written by Council. There was a couple of additions and deletions to the vision
statement just to clean up the language and you all should have gotten a copy of that,
too.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't hear any discussion, so I will make a motion that we approve the revised
mission and vision statements as published.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt-- or to instruct the city
attorney to prepare a resolution by adopting the vision and mission statement that's in
front of you. Amended. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Mid Month Draw
De Weerd: So, we will make this formal once -- or official when we pass the resolution.
Okay. Item 3 was a mid month draw. I just wanted to let you know that there has been
Meridian City Council
March 9. 2004
Page 7 of 78
an expressed desire by some of our staff members that they have paychecks twice a
month. That would be very costly and time consuming to our one payroll person that
pays over 200 employees and so we looked at this and thought we would try a mid
month draw. Finance will take it so that they won't get anymore than half of what their
regular paycheck would be with the deductions at the end of the month. We are running
a test program with some volunteer employees for this month and I just wanted to let
you guys know that this was going on and we will report back with a recommendation
and policy, if that's how we decide to proceed.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I just -- also, Council, I spoke with our finance director, too, and there was a
couple of bugs that we experienced with my employer in trying to do this and I think that
that will help them work out some of the bugs here that could exist, but I think it's a good
idea. I think the employees will appreciate that and it is, really, just a technical thing to
try to get these resolved, so I think it's a great idea.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De. Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a clarification. It's twice a month or every two weeks?
De Weerd: It's -- the mid month draw would be in the middle of the month.
Rountree: For the trial. If it were to be implemented when are we talking about?
De Weerd: It would be a mid month draw. So, they would have the mid month draws
and they would have their paycheck at the end of the month.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Did they -- did I misunderstand here or did you say that they had checked into the
every two weeks pay, like Nampa does? That has been a successful way, too, instead
of having the draws and stuff like that, but -- and I don't know --
De Weerd: Right now with their software and the limited personnel, they feel that would
be too much at this point.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 8 of 78
Bird: In other words, they are going to -- this draw is used -- is ran through as a
payable, not as a wage? It's ran through the books as a payable, the draw is?
De Weerd: I don't know how they are doing it on the books, Mr. Bird, but I will certainly
ask the finance director to let you know.
Bird: Okay. Thank you
C: CUP/ Day Care Issue with Tara Gorton:
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Item C is from the Planning and Zoning Department that's
kind of a carry-over from our pre -Council. In regards to Ms. Gorton's application and
considering a miscellaneous application; is that correct?
Powell: Yes, ma'am, that's correct. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there may
be a way to do it if you follow this logic. I will try and lay it out. In the past we have for
temporary uses required a conditional use approval and that was based on 11-6-4 of
the code, which says uses that are not specifically listed in the table require Conditional
Use Permit approval. Well, temporary uses aren't listed, but certainly day care uses are
or any other of the many temporary uses that people ask for. So, it's not really the use
that's not listed, it's the nature or the duration of that use that's not listed. So, if we say
that that past interpretation has been in error, that, indeed, the uses are listed, that just
because it's the nature of those that they don't need to go through the Conditional Use
Permit process. So, that's the first step in the logic that you need to make. The second
step would be that we do have these things called miscellaneous apps that just kind of
show up, for lack of a better way to say it, and I did brainstorm, thank you, Mr.
McKinnon, who is in the audience. He helped me brainstorm on the things that
miscellaneous apps have been used for and they do include things like model homes,
private roads, time extensions beyond the one -time -only time extensions, revisions to
final plats and discussions of area of city impact boundaries and annexations. Now,
sometimes those have gone to the Commission, sometimes to the Commission and
Council, I mean, and sometimes just directly to Council. So, I guess on this one we
would propose that if you wanted to do a temporary miscellaneous application that it
could just go to Council. Some of them have. The other thing, just to remind you, the
types of things that go just to Council, really, are just variances, final plats, and, then,
these -- some of these miscellaneous apps in the past. So, there is just kind of two
leaps of logic that you need to make there and I think we could -- it definitely is a
difficulty, it's something that the duration of uses is not listed at all, so I think we are
fairly safe doing that. I think it would make a lot of people happy, other than Ms. Gorton.
It just is -- a lot of people that want to do three day activities on a site that's currently
vacant, so we can't really call it an accessory use, we can't really call it anything, except
a temporary use, they are not willing to go through a four month process for it. They
may be willing to go a through a six month process for it.
Nary: Six week.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 9 of 78
Powell: Or six week. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: That's excellent, Anna. I mean I don't think those are real leaps. I think those -- I
mean I think they are reasonable interpretations of the code. I think that's -- I think,
eventually, when you're not busy, we need to probably have, you know, better language
in the code to support temporary uses in allowing certain types of things, but -- or at
least having a process for them, but I think in the interim I think that's a great avenue to
do that and, again, I don't think it flies in the face of the code, but I think it's consistent.
So, I'm all in favor of going forward with that if everyone else is.
Bird: I agree.
Powell: Since you're all thinking about it, in the revised code do you want it to be kind of
a Council decision or do you want it to be an administrator decision for the temporary
uses?
Rountree: I could go with the administrator.
Bird: I was just going to say, administrator is great with me.
Powell: Okay. Because that's where I was going and so I just wanted to double check.
Okay.
De Weerd: Now, Tara, do you understand, then, what the next steps would be?
Powell: Oh. And if you would want to say, Ms. Gorton has brought in a site plan, we
have been reviewing it prior to her application to make sure that she's got a complete
application. Once she has the materials ready for her conditional use, I think we can
use that material. We will have to double fee her, you will have to get a miscellaneous
application fee, in addition to the conditional use application fee, but I think we do have
enough -- we will just use that material she's gathering for her conditional use for the
miscellaneous app.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. And I don't think this applies necessarily to this application, but I think as
we look forward to code support in the future, I mean I think the only thing to really avoid
on these temporary uses is them becoming perpetual temporary uses. I mean that --
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 10 of 78
that's, I think, the risk that other places have seen is all of a sudden the temporary use
is never ending and, obviously, there has to be some finite point they are trying to get to
for a temporary use to really be valid and in this particular circumstance it's the CU
application. If the CU gets denied, the temporary isn't going to exist anymore.
Powell: I think we have got it with the way we have got it written right now, it's already --
we have already put it in there, but it's, I think, no more than four months in any 12
month period, something like that, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Thank you very much, Anna. Thank
you.
Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 8: Tabled from March 2, 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:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 8 was tabled from March 2nd. It's FP 04-008 on Lochsa
Falls Subdivision No. 9. Staff.
Powell: That's right, I have these things to do, too, don't I. Madam Mayor, Members of
the Council, these have been delayed in getting to you a few times to resolve some
issues regarding gravity irrigation and the associated easements and -- but as you see
them today, this is the preliminary plat, the area in red is circled -- there is the final plat.
It is in substantial compliance. Consists of 56 single-family residential lots and two
common lots. The gross density is about three units to the acre. This is one of those --
just to remind you, Lochsa Falls is one that went through the PD process to ask for, in
particular, reduced side yard setbacks that are now allowed and so, actually, their
reduced setbacks are more than what's required by the code right now. And other than
that, staff is recommending approval of this final plat.
De Weerd: Anna, have you heard from the applicant? Do they agree with all your
comments?
Powell: We have not -- actually, I don't have a letter on file, so I think we do need to
hear from them.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Powell: Oh, I take that back.
De Weerd: Okay. We do. So, do you have any comment you would like to add? Do
you agree with all comments? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 11 of 78
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 04-008, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No.
9.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 9,
final plat. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Tabled from March 2, 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. Item No. 9 was tabled from March 2nd, 2004, FP 04-007,
Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 10. Staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this one was just delayed, because it
was after the other one. So, there were no issues on this one. The area circled in red
is the general area on the preliminary plat. There is the final plat. And it is in
substantial compliance and there is a letter from the applicant saying that they agree
with everything, except one item and Brad is trying to look up that item right now and I
apologize.
De Weerd: Was that an ACHD comment?
Powell: Yes. It was just saying that -- they were just asking that we interpret -- it says
the storm drainage basin shown on Lot 1, Block 43, shall have a vegetated ground
cover and they just wanted to point out that the infiltration window will need to have
sand or stone as required by ACHD. Yeah. The landscape ordinance does limit the
amount of area that you can't have vegetated. A lot of times they do just put in the
grass over the seed and, then, it will -- I mean the sand and it will take root. There is a
small portion that can be exposed and perhaps -- the applicant is nodding in agreement
from the corner of the room, so I think that that's okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian C@y Council
March 9, 2004
Page 12 of 78
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 04-007, final plat for Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 10 and incorporate all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 9 for Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 10. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We are entering into the Public Hearing part of our
agenda and our ordinance does require that anyone intending or wishing to provide
testimony does need to be sworn in. So, we swear you in all at once, so we get that
anticipation all out of our system. So, any of those that have a feeling that they might
testify or will testify, if you will, please, raise your right hand. Do you promise the
testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God? If so, answer I do.
(Affirmative answers)
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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 12: Continued Public Hearing from February 24, 2004: 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: Thank you. Okay. We will go ahead and open Items 10, 11, and 12. They
are continued public hearings from February 24th, 2004, AZ 03-035, PP 03-041, and
CUP 03-065 for Settlement Bridge Subdivision and I will start with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 13 of 78
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did want to just give you a brief
reminder of the project, in particular, the layout. I think once you see the layout you will
have remembered it, but at the last hearing the unsolved issues were all regarding
public works and I will give Brad the microphone. I just wanted to point out some of the
issues that you were talking about. There was testimony regarding a ditch on the -- this
side of the subdivision to the south and, then, the related issues regarding the fence.
There was a fair amount of good-natured ribbing about the semi -proposed fence and
the Christmas tree nature of it. There was discussion about the lots along this southern
boundary. I think, really, that was the only item of testimony, other than the water
source. I believe that Council was fairly happy with the integrated open space and I
wanted to point those out again, some of the areas of open space corridors that come
through pretty much the length of the property. Again, they come out here and they
loop around. So, there is quite a network of pathways. And, then, these were an
attached product as shown here and we did discuss that a little bit. There is the floor
plan of that. These are some of the existing surrounding uses. The Heritage
Subdivision, as I mentioned, the one -acre lots there with the irrigation ditch on their
northern boundary. Havasu Creek is across the street. This is the Idaho Power
substation. And, then, we have got Edinburgh Place over here on the other side of
McMillan. And these are related to Mr. Watson's testimony, so I will go ahead and push
that over to him.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I think we talked about this quite a bit two
weeks ago, so I will keep this relatively brief. I did send all of you a memo March 4th
that you should have in your packets that was cc'd to the applicant kind of outlining what
had transpired at the meeting we were directed to have following the last Council
meeting. This, basically, boils down to water supply issues and two options or getting
adequate water supply to this project. One is a well in the high pressure zone, which
you could -- maybe you can't see, but this map is intended to show to the right of Locust
Grove Road or to the east the high pressure zone and west is the lower pressure zone.
There is two maps here. The first one shows what the fire flow was modeled to be
under max day demand. This photo here shows what the fire flow would be under peak
hour demand, with firm capacity, which means the largest well in the service area is out
of service. That's the convention we use to model. So, you can see that as long as
they didn't have a fire at -- between 6:00 and 8:00 in the morning we might be in good
shape, but we can't schedule those sorts of things. There is two -- the options for water
supply are the well and upper service -- or high pressure service area or shuttling some
water from the Well 20 site, which is at the Ustick reservoir upstream to the high
pressure zone. As I mentioned, we — several weeks ago our staff engineer Lynn Grady
spoke with civil survey consultants, so that they could investigate that a little more and
see what they could do. We do have them under contract to complete that design. The
memo that I wrote to you, I did have a conversation with Ramon and Dave Yorgason
yesterday afternoon by phone and they suggested some alternate wording to the site
specific comment number 25 on the preliminary plat conditions. I had written that
adequate fire supply to meet fire protection requirements must be constructed, installed,
and operational prior to signature on the final plat and had a period there. They have
suggested -- and I don't think I have an objection to this, but they have suggested
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 14 of 78
putting a comma there and writing: Unless a non -build agreement is executed and
recorded prior to signature on the final plat. I would also ask that another sentence, just
to clarify, be on there, if Council wishes to accept this recommendation, that says the
non -build agreement will not be released until all facilities required to meet fire
protection requirements are operational. So, the point staff is at at this point is do we
proceed with just waiting for a well or should we proceed with this alternate water supply
or should the developer proceed with this alternate water supply. Those are the
questions we have right now. And I would be happy to answer any other questions that
you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, do you believe that the conditions you offered adequately address the
questions you offered?
Watson: Councilman Rountree, I think they adequately address it and, at the same
time, provide quite a bit of flexibility on how to address it.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. The applicant is allowed 15 minutes.
This is a continued one, so we hope you don't have to use all 15 minutes. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Yorgason: My name is Dave Yorgason and I'm from Capital Development. The
address is 6200 North Meeker Place in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, no, I don't anticipate taking the whole 15 minutes.
De Weerd: Thank you again.
Yorgason: We recognize that it is a continuation of a Public Hearing. I just placed
before you the exhibit we had before, in case we wanted to use it for discussion
purposes. We appreciate the discussion we have had with staff over the last couple
weeks. In fact, we have had at least two or three discussions, I believe, with staff and
feel they were very productive. We agree with the conditions that we come up with as a
solution for this alternative to meet the fire flow requirements in the area and recognize
that fire flow is a necessity. We are not questioning that at all, we are just trying to find
a way to make the solution work for everybody. I believe there was one item that was
not identified -- let me back up first. Staff had identified a second sentence to add
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 15 of 78
pertaining to the non -build agreement, something -- I didn't write all the words down, but
something about how the non -build agreement will not be released until improvements
are in place or satisfactory requirements met. I don't remember the exact language.
But we are fine with the language that he did come up with. We have entered in similar
non -build agreements in the city of Boise often with the fire department there or the city
of Boise and certainly are in agreement with that. The only other item which we believe
was an item for discussion was in his memo he identified how to -- this construction may
be paid for and under this recommendation staff had identified that the city wants to
maintain control of the design, plans, construction of the improvements and we just ask
that we might be able to be the ones to pay for the improvements, not the city, and the
reason for that is we think we can -- our contractor will give us better pricing and since
we will be the ones paying for it anyway, we ask that we might be able to be the ones
who pay for that alternative solution. Other than that, we don't have any other changes
and we agree with all the other items that have been brought forth by staff and stand for
any questions you may have at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Not at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You indicated that you would want to pay for the improvements. Are you
agreeable, however, that the city would have control in terms of the inspection and
specifications?
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, that is a standard procedure that we
are familiar with, whether it's internal or off-site improvements we put in, the city would
certainly do the inspections and we would need to install it per city standards.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Public testimony. I have two people signed up. Gerald Clark.
Come on forward. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Clark: My name is Gerald Clark. C -1 -a -r -k. I live at 4360 North Locust Grove Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clark: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, I spoke to you last time. My biggest concern is the
water tabled out there. By putting in more wells out there for this subdivision of this
size, you will be pulling down the water for -- in the Heritage Subdivision. If I may give
you some maps here.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 16 of 78
De Weerd: If you will give it to the clerk just at the end. Thank you.
Clark: That first map there is the Boise valley water change map. I drew a little X there
where my home is located. This is pointed out by Mr. Shelly Keen of the Department of
Water Resources. From the year 1993 to 1996 the water in that area dropped 9.4 feet.
And the next documents there -- I don't have a lot of time here, so I underlined -- or
highlighted the items in there that I think that pertained to this. The other items there
are court cases regarding those first two pages there. And, then, on the ditches there --
this has never been settled. It was mentioned by the sub -divider there that they didn't
feel they were responsible for filling that ditch in across the line. That ditch there is --
you don't have that up there. Okay. This ditch right along this line here, the flow of that
water off that field came this way. And so this ditch is going to take that water from any
drainage or whatever and we requested that ditch be completely filled from both sides
from brim to brim. The property line does run down the middle of that ditch and so they
are going to have to come about two feet across the property line to properly fill that
ditch in and it would be better if they put a slight berm all along that ditch and a fence on
top. That's about all I have to say, that's my concerns on it, and I hope you read those
documents I brought up there, because I think that does pertain to this issue.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have two questions for Mr. Clark. I wasn't sure I understood your desire to
have that ditch filled. We usually hear that we want ditches open, so help me with that.
Clark: There is two ditches that actually run down this property line. One of them is a
smaller ditch that the subdivision uses for their irrigation water. The other one is a ditch
probably about four foot wide or maybe five foot wide. That is the ditch that the farmers
use -- it used to be water that — for all the property over here, but they abandoned that
probably 20 years ago or whatever and they took the water around down on the other
side of the subdivision and paved it all along on this side of Locust Grove Road. But
that ditch, the farmers used it for their wastewater off of this field and the water all
comes this way here and where my property is at right here, when they would irrigate
that field, there would be big -- I mean that ditch would be filled brim to brim and we are
requesting that if the ditch isn't filled in or something done with it, it's going to become a
mosquito infested bog. So, we are requesting that they fill that in brim to brim and put
possibly a slight rise or a little berm on top of that to prevent this water from coming
across into our subdivision or that ditch that we have possibly going into their property.
Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor, the other question I had -- Mr. Clark, was -- the
map that you gave us that indicated some 131 wells in the area, what type of wells were
those? Just domestic water?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 17 of 78
Clark: That was by the water resource board. I guess test wells at that time is my
understanding of it, around the whole irrigation district, the whole area of the Snake
River or whatever they call that aquifer under there.
Rountree: Do you have any information as to the depth of those wells?
Clark: No, I don't.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor. Mr. Clark, if I may ask a question. In looking at your materials,
it appears that if -- that what you're asking for on the water is that the city, if it drills a
well in the area, satisfies all of the requirements of water resources. That appears to be
what you're asking.
Clark: Yes. They would have -- I would think that that would be it. They would have to
satisfy the water resources board on that. According to what that there says, that they
are not supposed to draw the water down any lower than what a recharge system will
supply to that water. The way I understand it. Now, I have read -- I'm not an attorney
and I read that thing and my head is swimming from it and -- but that's the way I kind of
understand it and the way Mr. Shelly somewhat explained it to me.
Nichols: Okay. Madam Mayor, if I may. Members of the Council. The case that you
so graciously supplied us with, just to let you know -- and refer back to the prior
testimony of Mr. Watson. When a well is drilled for city water supply, one of the things
that's done is there is a test well done and they pump that test well and monitor what
happens on other wells within a certain radius, within the vicinity, as determined by
Water Resources. In that case you gave us, the test well was drilled, the test well was
pumped, and wells went dry as a result of that test. And that was just affirming the state
code that says if that happens you can't have that well, the new well. And so that's all
that case says. And so the city does comply with those requirements when they drill the
wells. They test them, make sure there isn't adverse impact upon those surrounding
wells, like the ones in Heritage Subdivision. So, the city will comply with all of the Idaho
Department of Water Resources requirements, if there is, in fact, a well drilled in that
area. That's just part of what the city does.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Okay. I also
had signed up to testify Phyllis Clark. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who
would like to issue testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to
rebut? We have five minutes.
Yorgason: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. It sounds like from Mr.
Clark's testimony there were two items, one of which may be more for the city to
address, which they may have already addressed. He said his biggest concern was the
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 18 of 78
water table and maybe it's already been addressed. I understand there is a process the
city has to follow to do wells and that's, obviously, out of my influence, but I know the
city does a lot of that, so I assume you know how to do that. Secondly, he said that the
ditch item was never settled. I guess I need to apologize. I thought it was settled. We
do plan on burying that ditch. It's a waste ditch. Once we stop farming there will no
longer be any water in that ditch and so we will, obviously, level it out, plat it out for nice
flat backyards for homeowners that's on the other side there and that's our plan, that's
our intention. I thought that was clear in the last testimony and if it's not, I do apologize.
I think I have answered those questions and, again, stand for any other questions that
Council may have.
De Weerd: Now, Mr. Yorgason, will you also keep in mind that when you flatten that,
that you will keep it at an elevation, so that their water doesn't go into your property's
backyards.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, we understand that. We will be doing that. Thank you.
De Weerd: I just wanted to make sure you had it on the record. Any questions for the
applicant?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think Mr. Clark also asked about fencing and since it's on your border, then, you
would be fencing it as well, besides berming it or whatever.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that's correct. There will be a fence there
on the property line.
De Weerd: And not the fence with the slatted --
Nary: The fuzzy things.
De Weerd: Not the fuzzy things.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, we agree that it will not be the fuzzy
fence, the Christmas tree fence as was referred over here.
De Weerd: I'm sure the neighbors would appreciate that. It did give us a good laugh,
though, a couple weeks ago.
Yorgason: You're welcome.
De Weerd: We always like a little levity during our hearings. Any further questions for
the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Mardian City Council
March 9.2004
Page 19 of 78
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Brad.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, the question relates to the desire of the applicant to pay for the
improvements as it relates to some of the conditions in staff comments. What's your
position as staff?
Watson: Councilmember Rountree, Mayor and Council, my recommendation was that if
we prepare the plan and Council approves of this scenario, that the city construct those
improvements and that the developer retain only the financial reimbursement
responsibility. My rationale at the time of writing that was that we would have control
over those plans and not release those to a developer. Coincidentally, I talked with
Gary this afternoon. We can't come up with an instance where the city has designed a
project and turned the plans over to a developer to construct. Be that as it may, part of
the reason that I wanted to retain control over those is so that if this project lingered for
a year or two and another project came in with a similar need, that they weren't held
hostage by this. I'm not saying that Capital Development would do that, but funny
things happen sometimes. They have spoken with me and at first I told them they were
more than welcome to take a parallel track to get this done. I'm not sure we totally
resolved this question. First of all, I'm not sure we have the ability to somehow license
plans that we have had our consultant prepare to a developer. Second, if we do have
that ability, how do we go about it? Is there some sort of an agreement? And I would
think that that agreement would have to have some timeline in it to insure that they
complete it now, rather than three years from now. I thought there was a third question,
but I guess not.
Rountree: That was it. Thank you.
Watson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Any further questions? Comments? Okay. Hearing
none, would Council like to close the Public Hearing or do you need further information?
Okay. Do I hear a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, hearing no further discussion, I move that we close the public
hearings for Items 10, 11, and 12.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 20 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 10, 11, and 12 for
Settlement Bridge Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion by Council?
application?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Hearing none, do I have a motion on this
Rountree: I move that we approve the annexation request, Item No. 10 on the agenda,
for Settlement Bridge Subdivision, including all staff comments and conditions, and
have the attorney prepare the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question before I second it, if that's okay.
Rountree: Sure.
Bird: Just what are we doing about the water?
Rountree: Including all staff comments.
Bird: They had three -- they had three solutions. Which solution are we going to take?
Madam Mayor, I will second that, so we can discuss it.
Rountree: Yeah. Let's discuss it.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 10 for
Settlement Bridge Subdivision annexation. Discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If it would be possible, I'd like Brad to give us those three solutions to the water
problem again. I believe one's drilling a well by us, one's drilling a well by them with our
plans, and stuff, which I don't think is very good, but -- and, then, one's bringing water
from across the street. Is that right?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 21 of 78
De Weerd: Yeah. Brad?
Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Councilmember Bird, the memo that I wrote
outlined two scenarios, one is an additional well is operational in the high pressure
zone. Scenario number two was bringing water from the low-pressure zone to the high
pressure zone. There are two I guess you would call it sub scenarios within that of the
city building it or the developer building it. Well -- and how those are funded. There is
several permutations of that scenario.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question, Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yeah. That's what I -- yeah, that's --
De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion to approve -- I guess we would need clarification on
which of those routes Council wishes to go.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm still kind of in a quandary on this one, because I'm still concerned
about the water supply and as well as the cost for the city in supplying the water. I don't
think -- Brad, on your comment about your discussion on site specific 25, that was just
in the preliminary plat findings, not the annexation ones; isn't that right?
Watson: Councilmember Nary, I believe that's true. That's the only place where I found
the condition as originally written that was rather vague. I don't believe it was even in
the annexation findings, but -- so that's the only reason I offered it as only for pre -plat. It
could certainly be in the annexation as well.
Nary: And I guess, Mr. Bird, I -- or Mr. Rountree, I guess we either need to make a
decision as a Council as to what direction to give staff in that, what we may need to
consider as part of the findings on whether or not adequate water supply by the city
exists in this area and whether or not development can occur until that exists, because,
again, I don't know -- Madam Mayor, I brought up at the last hearing as part of the
record that we currently don't have this budgeted. It's still at -- in the discussion stage
with the public works department as to funding this and how this is going to get
accomplished. So, I guess we may want to consider as part of these findings
something to give the developer some understanding about our needs and concerns in
regards to water supply and whether or not development can occur immediately or if it's
going to be delayed by something and I think that's the -- that's, really, the ultimate
question here, so --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 22 of 78
Rountree: I guess the intent of my motion was to include Brad's stated conditions, as
far as the solution for the water, and Councilman Nary's comment about can we even
supply the water. Yeah, that's a legitimate point. And the findings for the annexation
should address that. My preference in terms of direction to staff is that an additional
well be provided in the operations area before any development would occur.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And would that -- Councilman Rountree, I mean you're basically saying water --
or adequate well site for the city somewhere, whether it's on this property or adjacent,
being able to serve that property is what you're talking about.
Rountree: Yes.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Would that give parameters for staff to know how to proceed on purchasing
and constructing, since it is not a budgeted item? That question was for you, Mr.
Rountree.
Rountree: It certainly would give directions for them in terms of where to go as far as a
budgeted item. I have no direction in terms of -- not other than timing and to have it
included in the next budget.
De Weerd: And that purchase would have to be approved by Council.
Powell: Councilmember Rountree?
Rountree: Yes.
Powell: We're having a difficult time hearing you tonight. If you might pull up your mike.
I'm sorry.
Rountree: The last time I did I had static all over the room, so -- try that.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I guess -- again, I think -- I think we are going to need at least a condition
of some sort in the annexation findings that adequate water by the city -- adequate
water supply by the City of Meridian will need to be available before development and I
don't know if that's the right wording. Mr. Nichols is the word-smither here, but I mean
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 23 of 78
that's, essentially, the idea that we are wanting to get across, whether it's the method of
purchasing a site -- purchasing a well site on this property or adjacent property, whether
it's built by the city or built by the developer, I'm not sure that at least from the
annexation propose that needs to be done. But I think we at least need to have a
condition, the developer needs to know if you're going to be at -- if they are going to ask
to be annexed as part of the city, that part of their conditions to continue developing that
property is that water is going to have to be available and they need to at least
understand from us that that may not be immediate, that may be six months to a year
from purchase and testing and all of those things, that all of that stuff is going to take
some time to get there. I think that's only fair.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that it has to be in the annexation and zoning, because if we are not -- if
it's not going to be in there, there is no reason to even go onto the next ones, but -- and
I, too, feel the same way, Councilman Nary, that -- I feel that this has to be solved
before we pass onto this, have a plan in place. The budgeting of a well don't bother me.
They pay for themselves quite hastily. But we, as a Council, need to have in place
whether we are going to put the well on this location or some other location and know
what the cost is and everything else before we approve the zoning and annexation on
this property. That's my personal feelings.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, are you following this conversation and do you have anything
you would like to add? Or questions? Since you get to draw up the findings on this.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not sure where we are at right
now, other than agreement that -- apparently consensus that -- which is really what
typically occurs is that development can't occur unless adequate water supply is
available and we understand that and developers understand that. The question is
what conditions would you insert into the approval. A finding that currently adequate
supply is not available would be appropriate. A condition like -- from the preliminary plat
findings could be inserted into the annexation and zoning findings that the adequate
water supply would have to be found before the development could be finished. The
developer has made an offer to pay for the cost of the -- well, I don't want to put words
in his mouth. He did talk about reimbursement, but also using his own contractor,
because he felt like the price would be less than what the city could do it for. So, I need
to note that. But that that water supply could be done by pushing water from the low-
pressure zone into the high pressure zone as another means. You also have a well
under development south of Chinden, which would be sufficient at this time for this
development, if it turns out to be a decent well. So, there are some things in place and
we could try to tie all of those into the -- into the conditions with regard to annexation
and zoning, as well as the preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit, so that it ties
into that site specific condition number 25. 1 think we can get it done, it just won't be the
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 24 of 78
most straight forward, clean-cut thing that we have drafted lately. And I'm certain Ms.
Butler would want to see it before you signed off on it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'll withdraw my motion. I have accomplished what I wanted to. We have had
a good discussion on this, in hopes that Councilman Nary has taken all this in and can
come out with a motion that will tie all of these pieces in.
Nary: Well, it's nice I didn't write it down, because you made the motion, so I wasn't
worried about it.
De Weerd: It sounds like Councilman Rountree has as much faith in you as everyone
does in our attorney. So, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I had to put you on the spot.
Nary: Yeah. I'm sure you do. I would move the approval, then, of AZ 03-035, the
request for annexation and zoning of 70.64 acres for Settlement Bridge Subdivision,
pursuant to all staff comments and the following additional conditions: That the
preliminary plat condition also be included in the annexation findings regarding
additional water supply by the City of Meridian can be supplied in the vicinity to this -- to
this development before any development can occur, that the developer will -- the
developer and staff will work out site location, if possible, for a well site on the property.
I guess I'm not in favor of having the developer build this site. I think the staff
recommendation was for the staff to -- for the city to be in charge of building the site.
That is consistent with our other ones, of that being part of the conditions, that any well
sites in the vicinity will be constructed by the city. And I'm sure Mr. Nichols will get the
remainder from the minutes, because I can't remember the rest. But those staff
comments as well from Mr. Nichols be included and that, of course, as part of that that
he will certainly run those by the developer before we see them again. And I think that's
it.
Bird: Second
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the annexation of
Settlement Bridge Subdivision and I trust that we put a lot of faith in Dean and our
attorney to draw up great findings. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk,
do you want to call roll.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 25 of 78
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item 11.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of PP 03-041, the preliminary plat approval of
Settlement Bridge Subdivision pursuant to all staff comments and -- I'm trying to think
on the issue with the ditch, if that would be in the -- I guess that would be in the
preliminary plat. I think that the developer's comments were specifically as to filling in
the ditch, as well as making sure that there is adequate berming to prevent adjacent
water supply from entering this site or exiting the other site, as well as fencing along the
southern boundary of this property. Again, the remaining of the comments I think are
already contained in the recommendations and for counsel to prepare all of those
findings.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-041 for Settlement
Bridge Subdivision. Is there any further discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In your motion the fencing isn't the camouflage; right?
Nary: Yeah. I think Mr. Yorgason -- I'm going to trust that he is not going to put up a
Christmas tree fence, without us having to put it in the findings. I'm going to trust you on
that, Mr. Yorgason.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 12, CUP 03-065.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 26 of 78
Nary: I move the approval of CUP 03-065 for Settlement Bridge Subdivision, pursuant
to all staff comments. I don't believe there were additional comments for the CUP, so
for the counsel prepare all the appropriate findings.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 12 for
Settlement Bridge Subdivision CUP. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 13 is --
Powell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry?
Powell: Before you open this, could I ask you to do me a favor? Could you take a
hand count on -- other than the applicant who is here for Cedar Springs? It's the one
after this. If you wouldn't mind.
De Weerd: If you can indicate by raising your hand if you're here for Cedar Springs
Professional Center. Is that Items 15, 16, and 17?
Powell: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: Thank you, ma'am.
De Weerd: I didn't see any hands.
Powell: That's what I anticipated. Thank you. Sorry.
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 03-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18
building lots and 3 other lots on 5.7 acres in an L -O zone for proposed
Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering — north of West Pine
Avenue and east of North Linder Road:
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-069 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 18 residential 4-plex buildings on one lot in a L-
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 27 of 78
O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering —
north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Item 13 is -- I will open the Public Hearing on PP 03-045, for
Roundtree Subdivision. Open with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This project is off of Pine Street,
between Pine and the railroad. As shown here, it's in Lot 2 of Treymore Subdivision.
The northern portion of the property is development with the senior community -- or is
developed with the senior community at this time. The southern portion is still vacant.
This is the preliminary plat. You can see the other apartment building to the north there.
On the preliminary plat it's very hard to see how it's going to develop, we are going to go
to the site plan. They have proposed -- the site is about 5.7 acres in size and they have
proposed a total of 18 multi -family buildings, each containing one four-plex. So, they
are each on an individual lot and, then, they will be sold to owners. There will be an
owners association that ties all of them together, but each four-plex will be on an
individual lot for sale, as you see here. This gives a total of 72 units. And I will show
you what they look like. These are the elevations and some of the pictures. They are
proposing two open space areas, one's a picnic area with three concrete pads, and one
is a volleyball area, again, with two concrete pads and a barbecue. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is forwarding a recommendation for approval with conditions. At
the Public Hearing the applicant's representative John Rennison testified in favor of the
application. Three members of the public testified expressing concerns about the.
proposed development. Key issues of discussion were the internal fencing restrictions
and that was related to fire department ladders and being able to get between the two
story structures. Secondary access to the site from the east. As currently shown, the
site plan does not -- this drive aisle does not connect to the east. Staff has made that a
condition of approval. We do have another application for a similar development on this
property to the east and they are relying for their secondary access to come this way
through -- through this way as well. So, it's kind of a benefit to both properties that this
does connect, providing the emergency secondary access. Another question was the
usable private open space requirement. I think I brought this up to you a number of
times, that the -- for apartments or a multi -family dwellings in the planned development
section, it does say that there needs to be 100 square feet of usable private open space
for each unit and, then, the Planning and Zoning Commission did discuss that quite a bit
and the resolved it that the 48 square foot patios, in addition to the landscaping around
the back doors of the units, was sufficient area. These are up -down units, so they are --
each of them would have access. It's right by the please offer concise remarks. There
is landscaping right behind that there. Some other questions were the CC&Rs for the
development and, then, the internal traffic flow in the existing traffic in the area. I'm
going to go up to that one. The Commission made two modifications to the conditions
of approval for the conditional use. Their first was regarding the limit on the fencing to
be a minimum of five feet per story from building. So, for the two story buildings any
fences would have to be ten feet apart. So, it has the general effect of not allowing
fencing in between the structures, because there is just not enough room. The second
modification was -- as I mentioned before, it was just a clarification that the existing plan
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 28 of 78
does meet the requirement for 100 square feet of usable open space per unit. And with
that I will end staffs presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Please
step forward. Did you participate in the swearing in ceremony?
Rennison: I sure did.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Rennison: Madam Mayor and Council Members, John Rennison, 50 Broadway, Suite
B, in Boise. Thanks, Anna. Great job. I'll try to keep this very brief. We concur with the
Commission's recommendations and I just want to add a couple of clarifications here.
One of the, quote, key issues of discussion was the internal fencing restrictions. I think
we have clarified that at the P&Z. We didn't have any objections to the modification in
the recommendations. Secondary access to the site from the east, just as well reiterate
that we do have an emergency cross -access easement agreement with the
development to the east. I think it's called Rock Creek Development, if I'm correct. I
don't know if we have an illustration of that, but I know that an application has been
received by the city.
Powell: We do not have one tonight, Madam Mayor, but we have received an
application. I believe it goes before Planning and Zoning Commission within a month.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rennison: And that cross -connection would -- it would be at the -- our drive aisle
access to the east property line on the north side right about there. That's our cross -
connection between the two projects and that's where our emergency vehicle cross -
access easement would connect between the two parcels. The usable private open
space, I think that's a pretty straight -forward matter. We are in agreement of the
modified language. The CC&Rs, we have submitted a copy of the CC&R's to the city.
There is -- there are folks that are interested in those -- in the language to be found in
the CC&Rs. They are available for any interested folks to take a look at. I think the last
item, internal traffic flow has to do with largely the cross -access easement agreement
issues that we have somewhat talked about. We will reiterate that the cross -access
agreement that we have in place with the developer to the east of us is for emergency
vehicles only and that's what we have -- that's our intention for this connectivity. And
that's all I have. I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none right now.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, did you have something?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 29 of 78
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Mr. Rennison, in the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing a question was posed by the developer of the Treymore
Subdivision about whether these units would be under common management and I
believe your testimony was you hadn't explored that or considered that at that point.
Can you tell the Council if you have had a chance to do that or not and, if so, what your
decision has been on that issue?
Rennison: Madam Mayor, the developers of this project, who are present here tonight,
do intend to develop a homeowners association. The issue specifically of one entity to
manage all of the units is still open for discussion. There has been interest in this
project potentially to purchase all the units and so under that scenario there certainly
would be one point of management for the entirety of the units. If it was a point of
contention, I think I can speak on behalf of my clients that they would be open to a
common association to manage the entirety of the properties.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Did I understand you to say that this cross -access here was only for emergency
access or did I misunderstand?
Rennison: That's our intention.
Nary: And so what's going to be there? A gate? Because I thought I heard Mrs.
Powell say that the development on this side of the property was planning on using this,
because this is their access to Pine. Did I -- maybe I just misunderstood.
Rennison: There perhaps could be a misunderstanding. The project to the east of us,
Rock Creek, is required to have a secondary emergency vehicle access and as are we,
so we are intending to provide their emergency vehicle access through our property
through that connection that you just pointed out there, out into Pine Street. And,
similarly, we are going to exercise the same benefit.
Nary: This is your secondary and this is their secondary access, but what's going to
keep people from driving through it? A gate?
Rennison: Well, that's a matter we need to actually discuss with planning. It's a
somewhat open item here and I don't know if, Anna, you can add to this. Again, as we
requested, there has been some comments from interested parties about the -- how
much traffic would come out on Pine Street at our location. It's our intention that our
primary access service our property only. They are -- the roadways through the project
are private roads, so they are not -- to clarify, they are not public corridors.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 30 of 78
Nary: Now, I'm looking at the picture that Mrs. Powell had up there about the private
open space issue and I notice that it says there is -- these little -- I can't see them in that
picture, because of that, but, essentially, there is a little pad there that -- I don't know
how big that is, but where is the hundred feet of private open space? Private, I guess,
to me means private to each of these units, not private to the entire building and I don't
see a hundred feet of private open space for the unit there. So, was that -- am I just
misreading that? And maybe Mrs. Powell can help me, but that's the way I read it, was
that it's a hundred feet of private open space for the unit, not the building. And there
doesn't appear to be a hundred feet of private open space per unit there. Most of it's
common area grass; right?
Rennison: That's correct. Actually, the property lines go to a minimum of ten feet
beyond the backside of the building. So, that's the minimum dimension and so the
building widths are approximately eighty feet and so the total dimension -- basically
back lot dimension is a minimum of ten by eighty and there is four units per building, so
there is ten by 20 or 200 square feet per unit that we are intending for the use and
benefit of each particular unit.
Nary: But are they separated at all?
Rennison: There is not a physical barrier.
Nary: Because it appears in here that it looks like a yard for the entire building. There
doesn't appear to be any private open space for anybody, it's just a common yard or
common area for everyone; is that right?
Rennison: There is not a barrier between the space. However, there -- the partition
walls between the individual units are about 20 feet apart and so, in effect; there is 200
square feet per building to be utilized as yard and, in addition, there is 48 square feet as
a patio space. So, I don't know if there has to be a barrier to call it private or not, but I
guess that's --
De Weerd: Where are the privacy walls?
Rennison: Clarification. Not privacy walls, partition walls within the building. The units
are two stories and there is four units per building. Each unit is -- has an upstairs and
downstairs. And the building itself is approximately 80 feet in width. So, each unit is
approximately 20 feet in width and that's where I was referring to the partition walls
between the two units.
De Weerd: Okay. But the privacy pads, they are just a concrete pad?
Rennison: That's correct.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 31 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. We do have a
couple of people signed up on the public hearing sign-up sheet. Maxine Johnson.
Would you like to come forward? Now that doesn't look like Maxine Johnson to me.
Butler: Maxine has turned it over to me.
De Weerd: And you have raised your hand --
Butler: Yes, I did. Thank you.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Butler: Thank you. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street. I'm representing Thomas
Development. Thomas Development was the -- if you could maybe put up -- this is not -
- no. The plat, actually. That will do. Thomas Development was the entity that actually
developed this two -lot subdivision, Treymore, and our client owns the property more
close to Pine Street. He wrote to the Commission and stated three concerns, which I'm
going to repeat tonight, and asked the Council to consider. The first one was to require
some heavy landscaping -- a preponderance of evergreens on the north side on this
property on the south side of the canal. The request had also been raised about
restrictive covenants. Evidently, they have been submitted to the city. I know the city's
concerned about cross -access and I know you will look for that in those restrictive
covenants. Our client's concern is that there be strong enforcement mechanism for -- in
case of maintenance problems and so we would ask that the city's attorney look at
those restrictive covenants to insure that those kind of enforcement provisions are
contained. Finally, our concern was that secondary access -- that it is the intent of
developer to provide -- be designed as secondary access, so nobody's confused,
whether it's a gate or whether it's bollards, something that makes it clear to people that
this is solely for emergency access. This is a private drive going all the way up to Pine
Street. It is private service drives within the development to the south. When we
developed Treymore Subdivision it was with a clear intent to accept traffic from the
south over that private driveway to Pine Street, but that was it. So, we just ask that the
condition that that is emergency access only also contain a reference to some kind of
demarcation that will prevent other vehicles from coming through. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Mrs. Butler? Okay. Dave Larry. Were you
also a participant --
Larry: Yes, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Larry: My name is Dave Larry. My address is 939 Northwest 13th Avenue.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 32 of 78
Larry: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I'm the president of the Navaro
Subdivision, which is just right across the street from Treymore that borders that whole
area. We have several concerns. One is the traffic. You have got 13th Street, the
Sunbridge home, and Treymore's driveway all within about 150 to 200 feet dumping
traffic out into Pine, which is a very busy street now. If you build units in there, we are
concerned about another 150 cars coming out of there at sometime during the day and
that adds to the traffic problems we already have. Now, I know that ACHD -- but, again,
I think you have to have smart growth and not just growth, period. I think you have to
be smart about it. You do have Sunbridge, which is a nursing facility for those that are
even terminally ill, type facility, to take care of the senior citizens. You also have the
Treymore senior citizen home, which we are very happy that was the type of
development that happened right across the street from us. But we don't think 18 four-
plexes is what fits with those two types of developments and a homeowners association
right across the street that own their own homes. You also have the issue of a railroad
track that is used daily and if children are going to be there -- and we all know that
children are fast and fence or no fence, if they can find a way out and explore, you have
got them right next to the railroad track. You also have them next to a canal. When we
are talking about the traffic, I talked to a fireman out of Nampa, who is also the
representative for their whole state and I don't know what kind of gate you're going to
put up there or if it's going to have a key or they are going to get the bolt cutters out to
go through it, but they are surely not going to run over it. They are not going to damage
their trucks. So, if that remains open, no matter what signage you put, it's not going to
stop the traffic from going in and out of that U-shaped second entry they are talking
about and we don't think that's adequate for the amount of units you're putting in there --
or they are wanting to put in there. The ten foot space -- and there is no privacy as you
see in the back. If you have somewhere down the road an owner that wants to -- or a
renter, string a fence across there, if you don't have something in place, pretty soon you
have got a fence across there. If a fire breaks out you have hamstringed the fire
department. Those types of things are a reality. They do happen. And we are very
concerned about this development and don't think it fits. We don't think it is smart
growth. The other thing is it is low income, they are not next to the stores, the malls
where they need to go, they can't walk to them, so you do have the traffic volume there.
And with that I would stand for any questions, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to issue testimony on this application? Okay. Please state your name and
address.
Johnson: Maxine Johnson, 413 West Idaho Street, Suite 201, in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: And I am the regional supervisor for the Summit Real Estate Services
management company, which manages the Treymore senior community, and I spend a
lot of time over there and watching the little arrows and the pinpoints and everything
tells some of the story, but when it comes to real life people, I took a digital and I only
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 33 of 78
have one copy, but I'd like you to see it. What this is -- it's the street from Pine Street
coming passed Treymore to the proposed Roundtree. These are the only exits and
entrances that the senior citizens of Treymore have to come in and out of their home.
The garages are over here and we have our parking area, so my concern and the
concern of the management company and the people I represent is some kind of
reassurance that the new subdivision Rock Creek absolutely cannot have access
through our property and through that because of --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Mrs. Johnson. If you could give that to the chief, he can show it
up on the screen.
Johnson: I can get more.
De Weerd: Well, this way we can -- even the people in the audience can see that
Johnson: Okay. The first thing 1 thought of when I saw this subdivision and saw some
of the traffic that they are talking about, I think, my gosh, my people are going to get run
over, because nobody there is younger than 62 and most of them are 70 to 80 years old
and some of them still drive, but a lot of them walk, and they only have the one access.
So, I would really hope that you will guarantee however you have to do it, that the traffic
we have to put up with only comes from Roundtree and not from the other one and if
there is any way that Roundtree could find another road as their main access and use
this as secondary, I would appreciate that as well.
De Weerd: Any questions? Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Okay.
Council?
Powell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Powell: Members of the Council, I feel I need to talk about that access -- or cross -
access. Now, to my knowledge, we have not talked about there being a gate across
that cross -access and I believe -- and I verified with both the police and fire
representatives here tonight that they feel it's essential that that not be gated. In
particular, the ability to have two access ways not only for emergency fire, but just for
kind of regular police patrols is very important and in reviewing the Rock Creek
application, we really kind of designed the two to flow together for the police, as far as
being able to effectively patrol the area. So, I do believe that it is considered that there
would be a true cross -access agreement between the two properties on -- at that one
point.
De Weerd: So, it would be signed?
Powell: No. It would just be the continuation of -- from one drive aisle in an apartment
complex to another drive aisle in an apartment complex. I would imagine over time that
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 34 of 78
the two will kind of be viewed as one complex, that it will be perceived that way,
anyway.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to comment on any
of the testimony that was provided? Thank you. You have five minutes.
Rennison: Madam Mayor and Council and Anna, thanks for clarifying your position on
that. I guess we are still of the opinion that the roads we are proposing through the -- or
the drive aisles, I should say -- they are not a private road. Clarify. They are private in
nature, so we do not intend to encourage the use of them for the general public and the
property to the east. We would, I guess, consider the use of some type of breakaway
bollards and there is other types of things that I guess traditionally -- historically the fire
department has approved as a barrier for the general public, but that can be passed
through in the instance of emergency. We would like to explore those options. We are
pretty confident we can come up with some resolution there. There was an issue that
was brought up by Mr. Mannschreck I guess in his letter that talked about some
evergreens on the north side of the property. We did prepare a landscape plan that's in
accordance with the landscape ordinance, of course. I don't know that we would be
opposed to placing some evergreens over there on that side of the property, provided
they would -- they would — I'm not a landscape architect, can't attest to whether or not
they would work well there or not, but if they did, I don't think we would be opposed to
putting them in. Again, CC&Rs are already on file at the -- at the city and if any
interested party would like to review them and give us come comments on them, we
would encourage that. And that's all I have. I will stand for questions if there are any
others.
De Weerd: Council? Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. What's proposed for the strip between the
two -lot subdivision? I believe you show all of that in your side and on your lot and I
assume that that's the area bordering the drain. What's going to be done there?
Rennison: I'm not exactly sure where you're referring to.
Rountree: Where is the pointer? Right there.
Rennison: On the Nine Mile Creek there?
Rountree: Yeah.
Rennison: What our proposal --
Rountree: What's your proposal there?
Rennison: We are going to -- our proposal, I guess, should I preface with, in the interest
of getting Nampa -Meridian's blessing of our proposal -- we would like to landscape up to
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 35 of 78
the top of the embankment of the drain itself and improve that in the condition from the
state that it's in now, weeds, into an improved grass area. The area on the north side of
the drain, we intended to leave it in its more natural state, but with some light
maintenance.
Rountree: Thank you
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Would you mind putting the site plan up again, Anna, please. Is this -- just so I'm
clear, is this where they -- the volleyball court thing is is right there?
Rennison: That is the barbecue pit area or congregational area.
Nary: Where is it, then?
Rennison: Oh, down in --
Nary: Down in there?
Rennison: Yeah. South side.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions from for the applicant? Thank you.
Rennison: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anna?
Powell: Madam Mayor, Council, the police chief has suggested it may be appropriate
for traffic calming measures to add some speed bumps here and there and the fire
chief, although he always hates such things, I think his quote was if we need them, we
need them, so --
De Weerd: You don't think the seniors would use them as launching pads?
Powell: Cadillacs probably take them better than little Toyotas anyway.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- Anna, question. Do we often
require access from one development into another to use a private street?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 38 of 78
Powell: Just one minor clarification. They are not technically private streets by our
definition. They are drive aisles. And, yes, we have in commercial projects required
cross -access. You may remember some of them weren't too happy about it, like in
Resolution Business Park there was some complaints about requiring cross -access
locations, but you have done it and those were commercial uses, but apartment
complexes run that fine line of kind of acting sometimes more like a commercial use
than a residential use in just their nature of traffic. So, it is a fairly similar situation.
Nichols: Without too much information on this Rock Creek, is it also a multi -family
development proposed or is it a detached dwelling proposal?
Powell: It's also a multi -family development on individual four-plexes on individual lots.
It's not the same type of unit, but it is very similar.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further discussion? Okay. Would you like to close the
Public Hearing or do you need further information on this application?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, hearing no further discussion -- maybe. Hearing no further
discussion, I move that we close the public hearings for Items 13 and 14.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: For Roundtree Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items
13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would start the discussion. There are two things that initially trouble me
about -- well, three. Three things that trouble me about this application. The cross -
access is a concern. I think it is going to become a race track in this subdivision. It is
going to be a thoroughfare through there for adjacent property without something to
really curb that and I don't really see that in this plan and I'm not here to redesign it for
them, I just think it doesn't seem to work to me and this is the way this is. And this is a
goofy piece of property, it's not some access issues, and I recognize that, but the
intensity of use for this fairly small piece of property seems significant to me. The
compatibility with the adjacent property of Sunbridge and Treymore and -- it doesn't -- it
just doesn't fit to me between those types of uses to have this level of multi -family
dwelling in that location on a private drive and a cross -access to another one, which is
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 37 of 78
going to have another exit out onto Pine, just seems like a fairly intense use to me. The
last one, though, that really troubles me is that our code says for a planned
development, which is what this is, and the reason it's a planned development is so they
can put more units in it, is for — the code says all residential planned developments shall
provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space,
such as patio or deck. The Commission made a decision that said 48 -- a 48 square
foot cement pad and common landscaping is good enough and my opinion is it's not. It
was meant -- the way I read this, it was meant that each of these units had private
space. They don't have private space here, they have 48 feet of private space with no
fence and the rest of it's all common space. There is no private space, really, at all for
these folks. So, I don't think it is compliant with the PD requirements. I don't see that it
is compatible and I think the design of it is too intense and I think the design of the
roadway is a concern, because of it becoming basically a through street for both this
subdivision and any adjacent development to the east. So, I think there is just too many
problems, that this needs some design enhancement before I could support it.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: We have heard discussions about creativity in the past on these kinds of
applications and I guess the only thing I can say positive about the creativity of this
application is that they found the misspelling of my last name and I'm glad it's
misspelled. I agree with everything Councilman Nary said. I have a real difficult time
with this. It seems like minimal effort has been put into it in terms of trying to make it fit,
trying to make it feel right, concerns about access, concerns about density, real
concerns about the open space.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments? Do I have a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we deny PP 03-045, the request for preliminary plat approval
of 18 building lots and three other lots for Roundtree Subdivision pursuant to the
comments as stated tonight in regards to the density, the compatibility with the adjacent
properties, the roadway configuration, and access through the adjacent eastern border
property and the lack of private open space that would be in conflict with ordinance for a
planned development and for counsel to prepare the appropriate findings.
Rountree: Second
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 03-045. Is there any
further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 38 of 78
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move the denial of CUP 03-069, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development for Roundtree Subdivision pursuant to the comments as stated
tonight in regards, again, to the access, the compatibility with adjacent surroundings,
the usable private open space that is in conflict with the ordinance, and the density. I
think that's it. For counsel to prepare appropriate findings.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 03-069. Any further
discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-
4 to C -N zones for proposed Cedar Sprinas Professional Center by
Kevin Howell — north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian
Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-
N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin
Howell — north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps
and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for
proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell — north of
West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Staff, is there a reason you asked me about 15, 16, and
17?
Powell: Yes, ma'am, there was. I'm sorry I did that. I should have asked you at the
beginning or notified you at the beginning. We did not have time to review a last minute
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 39 of 78
submittal of a revised landscape plan. Came this afternoon. Staff did not have time to
review it and be prepared for tonight, so we are asking that you table the application for
one week.
De Weerd: So, you would ask that they be continued until the 16th?
Powell: If that's with one week, yes. Sorry. I can't even remember what today is.
That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearings on Items 15, 16,
and 17, RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067, and ask Council to, please, continue
these public hearings until the 16th.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067 for Cedar
Springs Professional Center until March 16th, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings on
Items 15, 16, and 17 for Cedar Springs Professional Center, to March 16th, 2004. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
140.97 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canyon
Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of East McMillan Road
and east of North Meridian Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461
single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140.25 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision
by Farwest, LLC — north side of East McMillan Road and east of North
Meridian Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced requirements for frontages, lot sizes,
and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths
exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Saguaro Canyon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of
East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 40 of 78
De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19, and 20, with your permission I will open all three public
hearings for AZ 03-027, PP 03-032, and CUP 03-058, and I will open with staff
comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Saguaro Canyon Estates. This
is a large subdivision, one of the larger ones we have got in the process currently. The
annexation and zoning includes the 140 acres. As you see outlined here, it has also
been amended to include the small strip of the driveway to -- also. And I will get in a
little bit as to why that's occurring in a moment. The preliminary plat is for 461 build-
able lots and 43 other lots and the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development
is in order to approve reduced lot frontages, lot sizes, minimum house size and also two
cul-de-sac lengths that exceed the maxim length as allowed by code. As you see here,
this is the first urban scale development that will occur in this section. This property was
done as a non-farm development in Ada County . There is a deed restriction on -- a
15- year deed restriction on this property, as well as all these little ones in back of these
lots as well. The intent of this diagram is just to show you the other developments as
they have come in in the north Meridian area and kind of highlighting the fact that this is
the first one to occur in this section again. Okay. I'll try and go through some of the
points here. I'll probably leave most of it up to the developer, but as you can see, there
is a -- kind of collector road that comes into the project. It terminates at this location.
There is a series of two large open space -- one at the terminal of this road here as you
get around, there is this kind of short mill loaded street in this location that, again,
terminates at an open space. You have fairly uniform lots going throughout the
development. This is a five acre lot owned by the -- there is several properties that
have been joined together to make this application. One of those properties is owned
by the Boyacks. The Boyacks would like to keep a five acre property as shown here to -
- they'd like to keep it and what they intend to do at this point is to develop a single lot
phase of this property with this access road as shown and, then, to build a new house
on that on a septic system. The other phases would start in this location, so it would be
a disjointed phase for just that one lot. That's why we went back and re -noticed the
annexation, was to pick up this strip of land. There is a strip of land that has historically
been the access to this property and they are asking that that be approved as the
frontage for that property. It's 24 feet in width. The standard requirement would be 30
feet. I think I'm going to skip now and go to the summary recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. And the applicant's representative Mr. McKinnon
has also provided a letter and I wanted to go through just a couple of those issues as
well. Application does come forward to you with a recommendation for approval.
Testifying at the hearing were David McKinnon representing the applicant and Rob
Greiner represented John and Ed Priddy and they own the property right here, from
here to here. So, they would -- this drive aisle would be their southern boundary and I
believe their other property line comes through right there. And they express concerns
about the density of the proposed development and their agricultural use, specifically a
bull, I think, that they have on their property and how it would relate to this development.
Mike Youngberg is a property owner representing the Larkwood Subdivision and, again,
that's the non-farm development here to the east. He reiterated the concerns that they
had in their letter. The Priddys have also supplied letters for the record. He submitted a
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 41 of 78
one-page agreement, dated 116104, between Larkwood Homeowners Association and
Farwest outlining five agreements made since the original application and neighborhood
meeting. Grant Lee, who owns the property just to the north here --
Lee: Not that far.
Powell: Not that far. Right there. Is that correct? Or here? No. Further down. Here
we go. Now I got it. Sorry. Mr. Lee testified with concerns about lot sizes adjacent to
his parcel, fencing, and street names, among other issues. Justin Martin, the applicant
and developer, testified regarding a secondary access and other key points of
discussion included timing and service of Meridian Road access, sanitary sewer
location and timing, perimeter fencing, and restricting the number of build -able lots. I
ran through those and I wanted to go through in a little more detail. Right now sewer is
only -- sewer, right? Sewer is only available to about this portion right here. It goes
into a different kind of service area on the other side of that line. So, right now there is
very limited ability to service this whole property. I mean we just can't. To serve this
property, the sewers are going to need to come through Paramount and, then, across
one of these properties. I think it's anticipated that it would be this one. The elementary
school -- middle school? Middle school is going on the southern portion and, then, we
have not seen any development proposed on the northern portion of the adjoining lot.
I'll go up to the surrounding property owners. There we go. Here is Paramount. As you
will recall when Paramount went through, we knew there was going to be demand for
sewer getting through the property in a timely fashion. We did not acquire those
easements at that time, so to adequately serve the majority of this subdivision, that
sewer does need to make it all the way through Paramount and, then, through the
school property and over to this one and we were concerned about the timing of that in
relationship to the preliminary plat approval. So, what staff had done -- that's regarding
sewer. Now, there is also a question regarding access. The only frontage that this
property has is McMillan. So, they have one way in for 461 lots at this time. They have
proposed an emergency access. I believe it's here. That would be a secondary
emergency access for the fire department. Staff wanted to see before they got passed
the 236th lot, I believe it is. This is what came forward from the recommendation for
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, that no more than 236 building
permits would be issued until there was a second public access available and that
would be a full paved public access, presumably coming from the west, to provide
access one of these stub locations and that was what -- they have wanted that to be a
secondary access, not requiring it to be paved, but the Planning Commission's
recommendation was that, you know, until we have two streets coming in and out of this
development, there should be no more than 236 lots. That 236 is not some magic traffic
number, it just happened to be how many lots there were at a dividing line between
properties that they picked. I believe it's this property here. Is that correct? Yes. I'm
getting nods from Mr. McKinnon. That represents everything from here down could be
developed with just a single access, but that this property could not be developed until
there was a second access point. Okay. So, the key Commission changes to the staff
recommendation were to add a condition to the development agreement that no more
than 50 homes can be built until the North Slough Trunk and secondary emergency
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 42 of 78
access are available. So, again, that's this line down here, basically, could be built until
they had sewer and, then, you'd also have to have the secondary access. Emergency
access. Add a condition to the development agreement that no more than the 236
building permits be issued until a second public access is available. Incorporate the five
agreements made between the applicant and the Larkwood Homeowners Association to
the east into that development agreement. Also add a clause to the development
agreement indemnifying the City of Meridian in case the North Slough Trunk
construction is delayed by actions of people other than the city. And you should have in
your packet a memo from Brad Hawkins to the Mayor and City Council, it's dated
February 10th, and it's regarding a hold harmless clause for Saguaro Canyon and they
did work with Mr. Nichols to develop the hold harmless agreement, basically stating that
there was limited sewer to the project and that we won't be held to their time table,
basically. So, with that I think the outstanding issues before City Council pertain to,
one, the hold harmless agreement and to discuss that, where that adequately
addresses those needs for the -- for indemnity. And since the Planning and Zoning
Commission public hearing, they -- the Planning and Zoning Commission did not hear
discussion based on this private driveway to the Boyack property and they did revise
this to just include a one five lot phase, so that they can construct a new family dwelling
on that. And that would be serviced by septic system and well, not by city sewer and
water, until such time as the development got up there. And it would require
modification to the preliminary plat to provide the lot with legal frontage, because it
doesn't have it today, and would also require adding land to the annexation legal
description. But I think they have already done that. Okay. Now, I wanted to go to Mr.
McKinnon's letter. He goes through the conditions of approval and I'll try and
summarize, so -- I don't usually take this long, but this is a large development with some
-- a lot of issues were tied to it. But the first one he does ask that the condition number
two be removed and that's the condition for the secondary access to be constructed on
the site prior to issuance of the 236th lot. The other one -- I just wanted to comment
that on -- with regard to the new septic and new well being on the site, we did want to
make sure the applicant was aware that they would need to demolish the existing
houses on the site before that would be permitted. There was some minor
modifications to some of the other ones that staff did agree with. Staff, however, does
still believe that there should be a paved -- oh, no, I'm sorry. It states that staff is in
support of a 24 -foot wide frontage for the Boyack property and it's a little bit strong. I
think staff came up with a way that they could propose that, but the requirement is for
30 feet on a flag lot and the concern would be is that if that ever became more than a
driveway for a single family home, then, that's inadequate width to even have, basically,
two flags for a house out that way, because they'd each have to have a 15 foot
minimum. So, it is -- we usually look for 30, even for common drives for two lots would
require 30 and it is a fairly consistent standard. So, they are asking for a 24 -foot width
on that. And there is a little bit of concern on staffs part of what happens to this. You
know, sometimes these become spite strips and are very -- are kind of a roadblock to
future redevelopment. In this case where you have got a large house and kind of an
estate to the west, it may not be an issue, but it's there for Council's consideration.
There was one more memo from Mr. Hawkins -Clark that I wanted to point out. And it
basically addresses the outstanding issues that -- that Mr. McKinnon has raised in his
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 43 of 78
letter. It should be in your packet, I believe its Saguaro Canyon Estates talking points
for Council hearing. I believe it's in your packet. And it does go over the requirement
for the 236 building permit, that -- the applicant states that the Meridian fire department
isn't requiring it. Well, they only address -- they address temporary or secondary
accesses. They don't typically address the need for a permanent access. That doesn't
mean it's not suitable for the Planning staff or the Planning Commission or the Council
to address the need for a second access, particularly a project this large. The other one
is that ACHD has just assumed that there will be another access available to the
property once it hits one of their thresholds and I think Brad went through those
numbers. Red Horse Way is a designated collector, residential collector, it would have
a total of 3,600 average daily trips at build out. Residential collectors by ACHD policy
are supposed to carry a maximum of 2,500 vehicle trips per day. Well, that 2,500 is for
new development. They do anticipate that that number goes up slightly as additional
development goes beyond that one, but their maximum policy says 3,000. So, this
collector will have more trips on it than would normally be allowed by a collector and
that's because they are anticipating that there will be some secondary access. So, all
we have said is that prior to the 236th building lot going in, all Planning and Zoning
Commission has said is that there should be a secondary access at that point. So, I
think I'll leave -- end staffs presentation at that and answer any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. Anna, on that five acre parcel, that wasn't before the Planning and Zoning
Commission; right?
Powell: Correct.
Nary: So, that wasn't part of the staff report?
Powell: Correct.
Nary: That was presented? And I have heard you say that — you may have softened a
little bit, but the staff isn't necessarily promoting it, but you have found a way to make it
work. But I haven't heard whether or not you recommend to have it. It seems a little
goofy to me to let people build a brand new septic system temporarily until we get sewer
there. But I wanted to know what your thoughts were as a recommendation, since that
wasn't originally in the staff report.
Powell: I have a little bit mixed feelings about it. I mean it's, obviously, of benefit to the
Priddys as a -- as a much better buffer along most of their boundary. Is it appropriate
for the city to want a five -acre lot? As a planner, I don't believe so. Is it going to be
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 44 of 78
temporary? Probably. Once all these houses get up there -- I don't -- have never
understood the real motivation and apparently they are very motivated to have this five
acre lot and it's never made a whole lot of sense to me to put the money that's required
for a new septic and well and, then, you know, if this were done at the rate the Lochsa
has been done, then, they will be there in, I don't know, six months, Justin, something
like that, you know. So, you know, to have that kind of investment and, then, to have --
to come along and say, no, you just spent 40, 50 thousand dollars, I don't know how
much they cost for both of them -- anyway, you have just spent a chunk of money and
now you have got to find out for -- you have got to get on the sewer system. I anticipate
you will be getting a request from them not to hook up to sewer in the future.
Nary: Me, too. I would agree.
Powell: And, then, having a house on there without a redevelopment plan -- typically
we do require a redevelopment plan on houses on five acres and I don't believe we
have seen one yet for that five acre piece.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant's representative here?
Please state your name and address and you have 15 minutes for your presentation.
McKinnon: All right. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, representing Farwest
Development tonight. And I'll try not to take the full 15 minutes. I will address the
comments that Councilman Nary addressed and go over some of the issues that Anna
discussed tonight, but before I do that I'd just like to lay out for you some of the
development features within the subdivision and tell you a little bit that he might not
know about this subdivision. And I'll let you know right up front that I didn't have
anything to do with the development or the design of this layout, but I, actually, do like
the layout of this quite a bit with this spine road running right up through the middle of it
and the high degree of interconnectivity of the subdivision. If we can start just right
down on McMillan. As Anna has said, we only have frontage right on McMillan Road
and there is not a great deal of frontage and there is a large canal that runs across the
south -- the north side of McMillan. We are not going to have any frontage there for
McMillan, we can't because of the ditch, but on the other side of the ditch we are putting
a ten foot wide asphalt pathway, rather than a five foot sidewalk, and that's been
approved by ACHD. Just to the north of that ten foot wide asphalt pathway we are
putting in a large berm and this berm is going to be between eight and ten feet, possibly
12 feet in height. So, it's going to be a very large landscaped berm. Just to give you a
sense of scale, the berm in Lochsa Falls, if you have driven past that, is approximately
eight feet tall. We are talking about a very large berm for this site and we would ask
that there not be any fencing requirement on top of that berm. As you enter into the
subdivision, the large collector road, which is the spine street that was addressed, it
runs north -south, is a separated collector street. There is large landscape islands in
between that and on the -- I believe it's the west side of that there is a pathway that
runs the full length to here and, then, the pathway continues across the large open
space lot. This is the regional pathway that's shown on the Comprehensive Plan that
runs eastward as a six foot wide pathway to the east boundary line. So, we are meeting
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 45 of 78
the requirement for the regional pathway system as well as part of the spine street. As
Anna pointed out, the first 51 units are going to be serviced by a lift station in Havasu
and that's where we are getting the sewer connection and that's where we have talked a
little bit earlier tonight about the indemnification of the city and that's the only area that
we will be able to sewer at this time until the rest of the sewer comes through. We have
read Brad Hawkins -Clark's letter that he prepared with Bill Nichols about the
indemnification of the city and we are okay with those requirements and we would
approve the recommendation that the city has to include that as part of the development
agreement. As Anna pointed out, the first 236 lots end right about here at the mid point
line of the subdivision and at that mid point line there has been a lot of discussion about
when and where the secondary access would come through and we would like to just at
this time state that we would agree with the staff recommendation for the secondary
access prior to any additional building lots at that location. We can agree to that. But in
the agreement with that, we still want to point out that the fire access will still be
required for that and there were a couple different options that we were provided for the
fire access and one of those that was acceptable to the fire department was to where
ever the sewer comes to put the gravel on top of that and bring it into the subdivision,
rather than an asphalt. If we are required to asphalt a large area in here and bring it
down for the secondary access for this site, that asphalt -- and it would be 20 feet wide -
- we would have to rip it all out because we can't patch to it for ACHD standards and so
we would ask that that secondary access for fire not be required to be asphalted at this
time. I think I'll just keep going on to the five -acre Boyack parcel and address
Councilman Nary's questions concerning the five acre parcel there. On the question of
whether or not that was discussed at the Commission level -- the part that wasn't
discussed at the Commission level was whether or not a 24 foot wide access road
would be sufficient to drag back there and whether that 24 foot wide access road had to
be a part of the annexation request. The request for a new well and septic system for
that site was addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was recommended
for approval with the language in the approval it stated that it would be torn out once
water and sewer came to that site. So, it was discussed at the Commission level to
have the new water and sewer system there. You mentioned that it seems a little odd.
It seemed odd to me, too, but in talking with the public works department, they felt that
that would be appropriate at this time for one building. The one building that they would
like to construct on that site has not been designed yet and I can state with the
conversations that we have had with the owner of that piece of property is that they
would like to construct one building at this time, but in the future it will redevelop. As
you can see, there is a stub street located on the north side of that property right there
that would allow the secondary access to that site in the future and that's where the
additional roadway come through. So, the major topic of discussion was whether or not
that annexation -- the 24 foot wide driveway would be appropriate. The reason why it
was continued to this project at this time was because when we submitted the
annexation -- field description for annexation, that 24 foot wide roadway was not
included with that. It's a long, narrow, piece of property and it conforms with the
Comprehensive Plan and the design of this it was -- we took a look at the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan showed that it should be appropriate
for development for three to eight units per acre. The gross density for this site is
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 46 of 78
approximately three units to the acre. So, it's on the low end of what the City of
Meridian requested. If you take out the roadways and the other required improvements,
the net density of this site is approximately four units to the acre, so it's, again, on the
low side of the density that the City of Meridian projected for this site. Overall, the
average lot size in this subdivision is around 9,300 square feet per lot. The majority of
the larger lots are on the eastern side of the subdivision. Many of the smaller lots are
located in this area. Those are approximately 6,500 to 7,500 square feet in size. And
there is just -- just to provide a mix of different housing types that can go in, different lot
sizes for that, rather than just your straight 8,000 square foot that you would typically
see in an R-4 subdivision. The Larkwood Homeowners Association to the east -- there
has been a great deal of negotiation with them. You should have all received a copy of
their letter that was submitted as part of the conditions for approval. Fencing was
agreed to at that time. The tiling of ditches located along the eastern boundary of the
property were agreed to. The limitation on the size of the houses regarding the height
of those houses were restricted to 25 feet, so a great deal has been provided by the
developer for this site. There is going to be several people to testify tonight concerning
the sizes of the lots and those are similar issues that we dealt with at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Concerning the sizes of the lots -- and we have some
very large houses that lie adjacent to this property and just to point out Mr. Lee's house
-- you can't see the full size of it here -- is 10,000 square feet in size. However, it is
approximately 460 feet away from the nearest edge of this subdivision and in
redevelopment that's approximately the depth of three houses, plus roadways. And so
as that property redevelops, there is going to be an allowance for a buffer for his site.
Five hundred and sixty feet is a great deal of distance, approximately one and a half
football fields in length, so it's a large separation between his house and whatever
houses would be constructed on this site. On the western boundary of the property they
have agreed to put fencing around the entire perimeter of the property. There was
some discussion about some of the livestock and bull that is over there on the Priddy
property and we have agreed to a fence around the perimeter of this property to provide
some buffer to the Priddy property and, essentially, one that you would see in other
subdivisions there is a note on the plat that is in reference to the agricultural awareness
and people realize there is an agricultural use adjacent to the property and that it's not a
nuisance, because it was there prior. It's the same way it's handled for all the areas that
are developed -- in agricultural areas it's a note that's placed on the plat to allow
everybody to know that at that time. Again, I wish I could take more credit for the
design of this site. There is approximately 17 acres of open space within this site.
There is a school site immediately adjacent to it and across the street is another school
site, so it's well located with the access to the school and services. Water is available to
this site presently. Again, the sewer issues we have discussed down here for the 51
units and sewer will have to come across in the future, but we have agreed to allow for
the indemnification statement in the development agreement. In addition to that, just as
a point of reference, the public works department anticipates that water and sewer will
get to this area in approximately late fall of 2004 or early 2005, to the remainder of this
property, so it's close. And, then, we have to get through the final plat, construction
drawings and everything, so by the time we get to that point sewer is going to be very
close, if not to this site at that time. There is a good deal of open space. It complies
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 47 of 78
with the Comprehensive Plan. I know you probably have a bunch of questions and they
probably have to do a little bit with the Boyack property, that's -- they'd like to keep that
piece of property and they would like to redevelop it in the future. I believe the owner of
the property is wanting to give that to his son and give him five acres and the son would
like to develop that himself and to build at this time. We would request that that piece
be allowed to be final platted before the remainder of the property or as a
nonconsecutive portion of the plat, because it's discontinuous to the remainder of the
plat and if it's recorded earlier it would be required by Ada County to have a separate
plat name, but that is something that we can deal with as that comes through the
platting process. I'd ask if you have any questions at this time that I can address and
reserve time to offer rebuttal later.
De Weerd: Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. McKinnon, would you point out the pathway system again?
McKinnon: The pathway system? There is a ten -foot pathway system along the Lemp
Canal on the north side of McMillan. It continues up the spine road and goes across
this large open space area. In addition to that there is an east -west access across the
open -- across the ditch area in this location that would connect to the school site that is
right here. It will connect to the school and the school has approved the connection at
this location. And the pathway continues up to this point and, then, continues to the
east.
Rountree: Thank you.
McKinnon: You're welcome.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. McKinnon, if -- on that five acre parcel there in the corner, if it's been the
dream of the developer or the property owner to give that to his son, why did they draw
it differently to begin with? If they draw -- they drew it with two cul-de-sacs in it on the
plan that we have and so that was what was presented initially. And, secondarily, I
guess I would ask the same question that Mrs. Powell brought up, who, realistically, is
going to spend the money that it costs to build a well and a septic and say when we
have water and sewer there, we are going to tear it out and hook to the city sewer? I
just don't see that.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 48 of 78
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, we have asked the same questions. It's just a request of
the property owner to have that five acres and to have the option to build that well and
septic at this time. The cost of installing a well and septic system -- it depends on
where you're at, but -- and depending on the soil types and the height of the water table,
but to do a new well and to do a new septic system would come in under 10,000 dollars
typically in this area and that might be something that they are willing to do for a three or
four year wait if it gets back to them at that time. It's a decision that they'd like to make
and it's been their request to have that opportunity. The two cul-de-sacs that you
mentioned earlier were taken out of the revised plans. We didn't want to design that for
them and have them stuck with that. They would like to redesign that for themselves.
Nary: I guess the other question, though, too, on that parcel there, we don't have -- we
don't have any other -- any other lots in the city that are part of the city zoning that are
five acre lots, so I guess I -- I mean I still find this inconsistent with the remainder of this
property or even anything within our code.
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, just to address that in a round about way -- sorry. We
couldn't separate it off from the remainder of this site, because that would be a
subdivision of the property for the county and so we either annexed the whole site or we
create an illegal subdivision for the county. And so it would remain -- it would be
annexed as part of the whole and just remain as, essentially, what would be a county
RUT type piece, with the ability to have the one building permit until the water and
sewer gets to it and it redevelops. We weren't allowed to split that off. If we could we
would. We would allow that to remain in the county and to deal with their own frontage
issues in the county, but because it's all one piece of property right now, we have to
annex the whole thing, rather than do a subdivision. It's not eligible for a one-time split
in Ada County to have that five acres taken off, because it would not meet the frontage
requirements. We know it's an odd request. It's been the request of the applicant.
Nary: Well, I think, Mr. McKinnon, you know, we have also turned them down when
people wanted to split everything but their house and annex all but their house and
leave that parcel out and we have denied them, too, so -- on the access to McMillan,
this is the area that -- where you were talking about the berm and not having a fence; is
that right?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: Okay. And I guess I'm still a little concerned on the traffic from this, even at the
236 mark on that location. I guess I'm not sure how you're trying to deal with the
congestion or any of those things that appears that's going to happen from there.
McKinnon: Councilman Nary -- and Bruce Mills is here from ACHD. He may be able to
better address that. With 236 units just on the one collector street, that's approximately
eight vehicle trips per day per house and that puts us well below the 2,500 threshold,
which is acceptable for the requirements of ACHD for a collector road and that's based
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 49 of 78
On ITE's manual for traffic studies and so that's — it will accommodate the vehicle trips
for that and that's what it's constructed for. We did play with the idea a little bit of
putting a secondary access here for fire, but in crossing the Lemp Canal, in addition to
the fact that it's too close to center access, that it really didn't pan out, it didn't make
sense, it didn't meet ACHD offset requirements as well. In addition to that, separating it
from here to here just didn't seem like a big enough jump to create the additional right of
way for that area.
Powell: Madam Mayor, President Nary, I did want to clarify. There is sometimes a
difference in terminology here and I think Mr. McKinnon keeps on referring to a
secondary emergency only access and I think that the Planning Commission was
referring to a public secondary access. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were
clear of --
Nary: That was the 236 limit; right?
Powell: Right.
Nary: At 236 you're going to have to have a secondary public access to this.
Powell: Correct.
Nary: Through the school site.
Powell: Correct.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have individuals signed up. Is Mike Youngbird
here? Were you here when I swore --
Youngberg: I was here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Just state your name and address.
Youngbird: My name is Mike Youngbird. I live at 5075 North Larkwood. I guess I'm
representing the Larkwood Homeowners Association.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Youngbird: The only -- I just had a couple of clarification items. In the public notices
that have been coming out, it's referring to approval of 461 single family building lots
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 50 of 78
and, as we understand it, there was an amended plat map and that's 442. So, I think
that's -- I just wanted to make sure that that, in fact, is the plat map that we have seen
and looked at and are talking about. We have worked closely with Farwest and they
have made several changes at our request. Really, the only concern that we have --
and it's more of a general concern is just the density of the homes. I don't know -- I
have looked at the master plan and I agree it is consistent with the master plan, but it
seems like awfully dense housing when you put it adjacent to a subdivision such as
ours and the others that have been around it and they have worked well to try and
create a transition with the larger lots next to ours and I guess I'll trust the Council that
you folks will be able to determine from the master plan perspective whether it's
consistent or not. But other than that, we just ask that the things we have agreed to
would be approved.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Thank you. Okay. John Priddy.
Priddy. I'm sorry.
Priddy: Priddy.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Priddy: John Priddy. 5740 North Meridian Road. And I was here for the --
De Weerd: I saw you. Thank you.
Priddy: Since I don't come before you very often, Madam Mayor and Members of the
Council, I'd just like to extend my appreciation for your hard work and effort in serving
our community. Thank you very much. We own the property that was put up on the
board. It's a unique property. It's a 20 -acre property that has an interesting
combination. It is a -- that's it. It's a -- it's a working ranch, cattle ranch, but also has a
luxury home on it, so it's a very unique type of property. You have before you written
testimony from me sometime ago where I expressed my opposition to this Saguaro
Canyon -- I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly -- which is directly behind me and in that
my main concerns were, really, as it related to the agricultural issues and, really, safety.
We do have -- we will probably run more cattle out there this year and have two
separate pastures, so there probably will be two bulls and, you know, hot wire fencing
and all those kinds of things and just a six foot vinyl fence just gives me real cause for
pause, because it abuts directly the east end of our property and so there is no -- there
is no room there. I mean it's going to be -- there is just literally that -- the width of a
fence between our property and that very dense subdivision. So, I do have real
concerns in that regard and have offered in my letter to you some thoughts and
recommendations relative to berming and some additional open space back there that
might make it more of a safe environment and I'm aware of the farming laws and the
right -to -farm act and so -- I mean legally everything is covered, but when you put that
many people directly behind an acreage of that size with that kind of animals, it's -- I
know coming from Los Angeles I had to learn about bulls and cows and -- you know.
And once you learn about them, you know that they can -- they can do things that aren't
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 51 of 78
safe for young people at a minimum. My other concerns, aside from that, really have to
do with what I think is the whole issue of density. The density directly abutting my
property looks to be -- at visually on the plat map, to be smaller lot sizes, as opposed to
some of the larger lot sizes that have been approved on the other side next to the other
larger subdivision. So, I would like to see not the smaller density lots abutting our
property, but larger density lots, not only just from an esthetics standpoint, but also from
a safety standpoint. Easier to control. You know, fewer homes or homeowners, you
can have a relationship with them. When you put row houses right directly behind you
and smaller lots, there is just more people and more problems abutting a property like
ours. Long term I have to express my concern, because I think once this subdivision is
approved it really casts the dye for the north Meridian plan and I'm not seeing -- in my
mind's eye I'm not seeing the consistency -- although it may be meeting the standards,
I'm not seeing the consistency -- thank you -- with the north Meridian plan and in terms
of open space and the kinds of things that I think we all look forward to. And I guess my
final comment would be is that I think we have a real unique opportunity in Meridian to
be a special community and I think that there shouldn't be a race to try to get a
subdivision of this size in so quickly before we really consider all the other components
of the plan. Thank you for your time this evening.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Priddy. Okay. Mike Adkins.
If you will, please, state your name and address.
Adkins: Mike Adkins. 6000 North Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Adkins: Mayor, Council, I'm here before you to also voice my opposition to the Saguaro
Canyon Subdivision. I find it somewhat concerning that -- from Mrs. Powell there wasn't
reference to the testimony that I provided her. Hopefully, you have received my written
testimony from February 3rd. But as Mr. Priddy stated, we share the same concerns.
And I also found it somewhat concerning that there have been -- and, actually, I think
that it was very good, I guess, on Larkwood's part if they proactively reached out to the
developer on this case. But it's kind of concerning there have been active negotiations
with the neighbors to the east of this proposed development and not to the west.
Certainly as individual homeowners -- I think the Priddys and myself have significantly
probably more to lose when you look at our respective 20 acre parcels with estate style
homes, so I find it troubling that the developer has not reached out to work with the
neighbors on this and to this date -- the date of this testimony I still have not had any
conversations with them. I'm not opposed to development. I think it's very important,
though, that when we consider development within the City of Meridian and being a long
time resident here, that we do it with some forethought and I certainly supported the
north Meridian plan. I see it sitting over there and certainly the area behind me directly
to the east and to the Priddys at the time that that plan was being developed, was for
open space and recognizing when you look at the development in terms of what's going
on in north Meridian, we are about out of room and rushing to do a development of this
magnitude right now when adequate city services do not exist in the form of sewer and
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 52 of 78
in the form of water and I would challenge in the form of streets and certainly without
question when it comes to the schools, this is premature and if this project is going to be
developed, I think it has to be done with all the neighbors in mind and with the best
interest of everybody and not just the developer in this particular case and so certainly
I'm appealing to the Council here, as they consider this, that if you do consider it,
please, do not consider it by lowering the minimum standards of R-4 zoning, which is
currently 8,000 square feet. The developer here is asking for 5,700 square feet. We do
not need to do this in the north Meridian area. As well, concessions have been made
on the east side of the property to protect those homeowners and the value of those
homes and those are very nice homes in the Larkwood Subdivision. I would ask the
same thing. Tonight was the first night that I have heard of vinyl fencing being proposed
on the west side. I heard it discussed on the Priddy property, but not on mine. I'm
going to take it one step further. I think that should be high bermed and not by use, but
by the developer, and it should also be fenced, so that -- so that you can separate two
very unique pieces of property from a development of this size. But, certainly, I don't
think this development should be -- appreciate that -- that this development should be
considered under any circumstance until this Council is absolutely convinced that the
city services and the infrastructure is in place to support this. You talked about — early
on your mission statement and changing it to a vibrant city. Well, a vibrant city isn't one
that is overcrowded and overtaxed from an infrastructure standpoint and there is an
opportunity right now for this Council, I believe, to do the right thing and that is don't
rush to do this and preserve some of the open space that's out there in Meridian, but
certainly don't do it without the infrastructure. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Adkins?
Powell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did receive a letter from Mr.
Adkins. I didn't mean to slight him, I just forgot to mention the written testimony, and
there is a fair amount of written testimony in this file, as well as spoken testimony. And
one point of clarification on the -- his testimony as well. He spoke of open space and
that reference was to -- there was a potential park and a school site notes in this area
behind those two houses. That's when the school was anticipating locating there. I
think they have located it here and here, instead. I believe. That was all. Thank you?
De Weerd: And we do have the letter in our file. So, I have Grant Lee signed up.
Lee: You got my letter also.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. I own the 30 -
acre parcel to the right in the upper corner. I abut both Larkwood Subdivision and I abut
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 53 of 78
the proposed Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. I'm good friends with most of the people in
Larkwood Subdivision. I, too, am disappointed that there was a lot of negotiations
between the developer and them. Originally in their first preliminary plat as they
proposed, the lot sizes on Larkwood and the lot sizes for the lots facing my property
were the same size. After their great deal of give and after their attempts, they say, to
have lots that are uniform and lots that are above average size, it turns out the lots at
Larkwood towards my end are now 31 feet bigger, wider, than the lots that face my
property and this came about after I turned down their sell my property at their price.
My home is 10,000 square feet. I would consider that a luxury home. My garage is
1,800 square feet. It's bigger than the proposed houses that can fit on a 75 -foot lot. In
accomplishing making lot sizes bigger for Larkwood, they eliminated four lots and they
slid the lots on my property smaller and also introduced a street stub, so Mr. Youngbird
says he still thinks that the density is not what it should be. Well, his doesn't have a
street stub going by his house to make it worse with everybody on that end of the
neighborhood wanting to come down not only into my property, but passed my front
door. I don't think that the requirement should be reduced for frontages or for lot size or
for minimum house sizes. They did agree to put vinyl fencing, as the Planning and
Zoning Commission required, passed my property. No mention of berms, no mention of
pressurized irrigation, no mention of changing lot sizes, other than they decreased it 31
feet small, as I mentioned, from the Larkwood sizes, where in their original plat they
were exactly the same size. I disagree with that strongly. The Planning Commission
was very hesitant to approve more than the first phase. If you will look back through
their comments -- although they did approve the first phase, they were very hesitant to
do that, and I don't have any problem at this time if the first phase were approved, but if
you do approve that, I would strongly suggest that you don't approve the rest of the
subdivision until such time as they are ready to approve and, who knows, maybe some
developer is going to come into my property and want to put a street stubbed differently,
rather than running right passed my front door. My house, just in final comment, does
not sit back 550 feet. My house is right in line with the other homes in Larkwood. They
have the luxury of an acre minimum, non -buildable lot, separating from these larger lots
now and mine are squeezed into 74 feet and I'd like that same thing, to be able to have
some vacant property between my house and these little skinny lots with the street stub
coming right passed my house. I sincerely hope that you take those into consideration
when you make your decision, not just on my behalf, but from Mr. Adkins and Mr.
Priddy. Larkwood got what they wanted. They don't seem to care that my lot sizes
have been decreased at their benefit and at my expense. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Any questions. Okay. Is there anyone else who
would like to issue testimony on this application? Please step forward. Had you
participated in the swearing in?
Beehler: I did.
De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 54 of 78
Beehler: Madam Mayor, my name is Stephanie -- or Stevie Beehler and my address is
1920 Tanner Court, Meridian, Idaho, 83642.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Beehler: I just have some comments and some feedback for you, because I don't really
know, I have to trust you to decide what's right or what's best for our community. And I
think you have done a fabulous job just watching you here this evening. So, thank you.
I do -- my husband and I do own a parcel, it's adjacent to this. It's at the northern piece
that you can't really see on this plat, but it's up above -- yeah, it's one of the little four
squares to the north. Yes. That one. No. Down at the bottom adjacent to it. There
you go. So, that would be the parcel. Oh. Sorry. I forgot it was Mr. Wardle doing that.
Excuse me. But, anyway, just some feedback, for your information, because I do know
my neighbors, and they have some very fabulous, very unique properties on the outside
of the proposed subdivision. You know, anything that the developer could do to
maintain that integrity and, therefore, they don't lose the value of these beautiful,
beautiful pieces that they have spent a lot of time enhancing and making extremely
gorgeous homes and landscaping on those 20 acre parcels and the other parcel, the
other large rectangular would be, I'm sure, greatly appreciated. I just thought I'd give
you some feedback, you know, everybody probably deserves the same consideration.
I, myself, haven't been contacted, but that's okay, too, I probably had a chance to go to
the hearings before this. I was out of town and that's all right. One point of information.
My little ten acre parcel there has already been -- at least I received a letter in the mail
from Ada County and they did say that I could split that into two five acre parcels. So,
the five acre parcel that is being discussed there is not, in my mind, unusual, the
Boyack parcel that you're talking about, because I have already been told I can take that
ten acres and split it into two. So, that's not unusual and I just thought from a -- I'll give
you another point of view from a horse owner's point of view or from somebody who
likes to have a large piece of land, it would not be beyond me at all to put in a septic
system and drill a well and, then, when city facilities became available, to take
advantage of them, because I'd much prefer to be on city sewer. I know it's more
money, but I would much prefer to deal with that than a septic system and I'm currently
building on a piece of property while I'm putting in a well and I'm putting in a septic
system and when the facilities are available I fully intend to spend the extra money and
connect and take advantage of those. So, that's a little different perspective for you and
I guess that was basically what I wanted to say, is just I think all the homeowners
deserve the same consideration and let's see if we can't keep the value of their property
intact. I think that's really important to all of us. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to issue testimony on this? Okay. Would the applicant's representative like to
rebut? You have five minutes.
McKinnon: Okay. I guess I would like to rebut just a few things. If we can start off with
just a couple of items that Mr. Priddy had to comment on. Anna, could you go to -- to
the next two slides. There we go. Right there. Mr. Priddy's lot right here, we have
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 55 of 78
approximately an 8,500 square foot lot and another 8,500 square foot lot. There is two
lots that are approximately 6,500 square feet adjacent to it. There is four lots adjacent
to Mr. Priddy's property. The request for berming of the back yards or the side yards of
these two lots and, then, putting a fence on top of the berm becomes problematic in a
back yard, because you build the berm and, then, you put a fence on top of it. At the
height of the berm is where you would like to see your property line, but if he wants to
see the berm all on one piece of property, then, essentially, the applicant or the
developer would be granting all the remainder of that land on the other side of the berm
to the owner of the property adjacent to it, because the owner of the property could not
utilize that property on the other side of the fence, so you would have a berm built up
with a fence on top, everything on one side typically goes to one owner, and the other to
the other owner. So, you could create a berm and put a fence on top of the berm, but
that -- it destroys the back yard of those properties. And, in addition to that, we are only
dealing with four properties on Mr. Priddy's property that we would be looking at. So,
the berming in the back yard becomes somewhat -- somewhat hard to do. And as far
as the fencing and having the fencing discussed for the first time, at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting there was a great deal of discussion with Larkwood
Homeowners Association and they wanted to have a five foot tall fence with a one foot
lattice on top. We talked about what type of fencing the adjacent neighbors would like
to see and at one point during the conversation in the minutes they said what do you
feel about doing the west boundary, as well as the east boundary and we said we would
be happy to do the west boundary, as well as the east boundary. So, we agreed to put
the fencing in at this location. In regards to the agricultural uses, there is a lot of
agricultural uses in Ada County that are adjacent to properties in the City of Meridian
and, as Mr. Priddy stated, the right -to -farm act basically covers the legality of that for
this subdivision. As far as Mr. Adkins comments go, there is a couple -- well, he
addressed a lot of things and I got a copy of this letter today from Brad Hawkins -Clark
and he addressed a lot of things, the issues of whether or not water and sewer are
available and, as we stated, water is available and if sewer is available for the first 51
lots, and we would agree to wait until the water and sewer -- or the sewer gets brought
into the remainder of the property. As far as the schools, there are two schools planned
immediately adjacent to this site, one across the street and one immediately adjacent to
this site, so schools are in the works and you typically don't see the schools until the
people are there and so those are in the works, as the rest of the things are going
through. Planning takes place at the same time for schools and for subdivisions. As far
as the streets, that's a difficult question to answer, because we can't dedicate any
additional road on McMillan. If we could, we would, but we can't and so we are left with
what we have got there. We have met the traffic study requirements for the collector
road and for the access onto McMillan. It falls within the guidelines of Ada County
Highway District for the use of McMillan Road for the vehicle trips that would be
generated by this subdivision. We talked a little bit about berming and fencing. Again, it
becomes difficult to berm and fence someone's back yard unless you can do it on one
side of someone's property and have the berm -- the remainder of the berm fall on the
other side of the property, which is not what they'd like to see happen. I believe a fence
would be adequate at this time. I don't know if Mr. Adkins has any cattle on his property
right now -- no cattle. It's a large piece of property and the house is set back -- I think
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 56 of 78
it's about 360 feet on -- from the topo map that shows where the houses are at and they
jump right from there to Mr. Lee's discussion about not being 560 feet back. That might
have been my mistake. It's 460 feet back from the remainder of this property and Mr.
Lee's conversation just a little bit more, the idea that an additional stub street has been
added to his property, the stub street was, actually, in the same location. There was a
great deal of testimony at the previous Planning and Zoning Commission meeting about
the name of that stub street, because it was called East Totem Pole Way and he didn't
want to live on East Totem Pole Way if the street was ever to continue through and so
we went ahead and changed that to a new name and so the stub street didn't change.
The actual number of residential lots within the subdivision has gone from 461 units
down to 442 units, so the sizes of the lots have gotten bigger adjacent to Larkwood.
There was one unit out of -- there were four units adjacent to Mr. Lee's property below
Totem Pole. The fifth one was moved up there. Those are still over 8,000 square foot
lots, which are larger than you would typically see in the R-4 zone. The fact that we are
adjacent to a large estate type development that's set back far enough from the
remainder of this development and the fact that it will redevelop in the future should
provide additional buffer for that. I thank you for your time tonight and I'm thankful for
those people that came and testified. This is a large project and there is a lot of impacts
with this and we understand that and we believe that it provides a great deal of open
space and some of the necessary things that you'd like to see and the creativity of a
subdivision and I'd ask if you have any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It would appear, Mr. McKinnon, if I'm looking at the original site from where the
461 to 442 came, it appears that, really, all of it is just this parcel right there. So, it really
was just the change from the two cul-de-sacs and the fairly intense amount of parcels
right around this piece to one -- part one house and that's it. So, it wasn't really -- I
mean it's not like you readjusted the whole thing, I mean it's really just that one part that
took 20 out.
McKinnon: That's probably pretty close to being accurate. I know there was some
movement and shuffling of these lots in this area, a great deal of it, but you may be
correct in that. In addition to that, if you will notice on the plat there is a note as to the
average lot size and that excludes the five acre piece. It does not include that in that
number.
De Weerd: Anything further? I guess I was curious -- you mentioned that 8,000 square
feet is large for an R-4.
McKinnon: That's a minimum in the R-4 and let me clarify that comment. I started
speeding up really quick. In the —
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 57 of 78
De Weerd: I just wanted to clarify.
McKinnon: Well, if you look at the Comprehensive Plan it says R-3 to R -- three
dwelling units to eight dwelling units per acre and so there could have been a request
for an R-8 designation on this property, which would have allowed for much smaller lots
than would be allowed. In addition to that, under the planned develop requirements you
can ask for a reduction in the lot size. The lot size is not being reduced there adjacent
to this property below that, which would be an R-4 minimum. It's actually above the
minimum, which is 8,000 square feet in R-8.
De Weerd: I guess, though, I'm curious. When you look at the size and the quality of
the homes, that you still have 8,000 square foot lots on, or less, they are not going to
redevelop into R-8 subdivisions, even if they would. Mr. Lee's home is 10,000 square
feet and his garage is bigger than the houses that will probably be built on those lots.
So, he's -- even if he did redevelop, which he didn't say he was, he's not going to
surround himself with 8,000 square foot lots. So, I guess I don't understand why there
isn't a better attempt to transition, not only on his side, but also on the other side,
because of the quality of the homes and the size of the homes that are on those
estates.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just going off the Comprehensive
Plan from the City of Meridian that was adopted, you're right, on the east side of this
property and taking a look at the estate size lots that are over there, the City of
Meridian, in doing the Comprehensive Plan show the properties to the east being low
density, which is the -- up to three dwelling units per acre. It won't develop at this same
density. However, what do you place next to a 10,000 square foot house, other than a
large 10,000 square foot house to have the same type. If you were to do that, the
10,000 square foot house, you could essentially look at doing, you know, one to one
and a half acre lot subdivision in there, which isn't a city density. This piece of property
is going to come into the city at sometime and come in with a city density and those
large lots in that area are not going to come in at being the size that would
accommodate a 10,000 square foot house. You know, as a point of reference, the R-3
is 18,000 square feet and R-2 zoning, which is the least dense that the city would allow,
just two units to the acre, is 20,000 square foot lots. You're not going to be able to fit
very many 10,000 square foot buildings on that. Within that 460 feet you could fit two
large lots, plus a street in between it. At a higher density of the R-4 type density, which
is also something they could request under the Comprehensive Plan, they could fit three
-- there is three stacks worth of housing, plus roadways between the house and this
piece of property. It's a big house.
De Weerd: Well, I'm not asking you to put a 10,000 square foot house there. I'm just
saying there must be some kind of transition and your development -- your proposal is
certainly not anywhere close to what would even transition between their house and
your piece of property and I guess that's what my question was. Also, as I recall in the
conversation and the testimony that led up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 58 of 78
that open space was there because, in essence, a lot because of these estates and I
know that those are floating, but I guess I thought there would be a little bit more
sensitivity in those areas for a transition, a larger size lot, or open space. So, I guess I
would share some of the concerns of the people that have testified as to what really
transitioning is occurring and I guess another point is the agricultural use of Mr. Priddy
that with his current use there is great cause of concern with the livestock and that you
would have that kind of density next to that kind of use.
McKinnon: As far as a transition for those areas, what type of transition would you like
to see?
De Weerd: I guess I'm a little bit perplexed, like the testimony is. What you have done
in the transitioning to the east of your property and that subdivision, it seems like there
was greater sensitivity down there to that transition of uses and so, I guess, maybe
something in that regard. But, again, to the berming or allowing of berming, at least in
lot depth, that you could have berming to the properties to the west. And I'm not going
to design it for you, those were just my questions. And I guess my last question is more
in terms of, you know, in considering sewer, I guess I'm, again, a little bit confused on
why we are considering a lift station. We hate lift stations and the lift station would be
pumping this sewer into a sewer line that isn't to serve this particular piece of property.
So, when you say there are services out there, even to 51 lots, really, there aren't. They
are putting in a lift station to sewer those 51 lots into a different sewer line, as I
understand it.
McKinnon: Let me address that real quick. The sewer lift station is there. It's part of
the Havasu Subdivision or Cobre Basin. So, it's an existing lift station. It's not a new lift
station. It's the lift station that was installed as part of Havasu, which is now Copper
Basin. It's an existing lift station.
De Weerd: And that's across the street.
McKinnon: It's across the street.
De Weerd: And would be in the White and this would be in the North Slough.
McKinnon: That's correct. And as soon as it comes through, then, it's set up so it would
drain into the correct drainage.
De Weerd: But, generally, our policy is we do not sewer subdivisions into a line that it's
not meant to sewer into and that's my only point.
McKinnon: Okay.
De Weerd: We don't have -- we really, if we follow our policies that we have been fairly
consistent in, is that wouldn't be considered that we have sewer out there.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 59 of 78
Watson: Madam Mayor, can I just clarify that?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. I would appreciate that.
Watson: This first phase would forever more sewer by gravity down into the White
trunk.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Watson: It's just that the top part of Cobre Basin is on a temporary lift station until what
we call the Starky piece to the west is developed and it will flow westward into the White
trunk. It's going into the right drainage, it's just it needs a little jump across some
undeveloped property at the current time.
De Weerd: We have a piece of that that is sewered by -- this property is sewered by
two different trunk lines.
Watson: Correct,
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I'd like to just real quickly -- Mr. McKinnon asked the question of -- and I'd like
to give my opinion. He asked, well, what would you like to see as far as transition and I
would say that the developer worked with the residents in this subdivision right here to
find something that they felt was a transition from larger uses and so I didn't hear from
public testimony that the developer worked with these surrounding entities to find a
similar transition which they would find acceptable. And so -- and maybe that might be
the answer to one of the questions that Mr. McKinnon asked.
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there has been -- you know, we did
do a neighborhood meeting where everybody within three hundred was contacted and
those people that didn't receive a notification, I can't speak to that, but there was a
neighborhood meeting that was held and it was held at one of the area hotels and there
is a large number of people that live there. The Larkwood Homeowners Association
was -- I'll just state they were the more aggressive of those that wanted to try to work
harder with that. Mr. Lee and the developer have worked and they have tried to -- they
even talked purchase of the lot -- Mr. Lee's lot for future development. I mean it's not as
though that's been put off. There has been ample testimony from the applicant -- from
the adjacent property owners at the P&Z meeting, so it's not something that we haven't
tried to work with, there just hasn't been a great deal. If you could give me just a few
seconds to talk with the developer, I might be able to get one thing straightened out. I'd
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 60 of 78
like to have that straightened out before you close the public hearing and report back to
you on something that --
Bird: I need to ask a quick couple of questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, you're testifying that you met with the opportunity -- every person within 300
yards of this property had the chance to meet with --
De Weerd: Feet.
McKinnon: Three hundred feet.
Bird: Three hundred feet. They were all notified and made sure that -- where the
location of the meeting was and all this kind of stuff.
McKinnon: To the best of my knowledge that's correct
Bird: Okay. Because we have had three people testify that -- or four people testify that
they did not receive a notice. The 8,000 square feet, we can have by 75 by 150 or --
what's the width of Mr. -- the lots that are butting up against Mr. Lee and also against
Mr. Adkins and Priddys?
Lee: Seventy-four feet
Bird: Just a minute.
McKinnon: That's pretty accurate. Seventy-four, seventy-five feet, 110 feet deep, for
those --
Bird: See, the 8,000 is your minimum for R -4s.
McKinnon: Right.
Bird: But you can make them in any rectangular shape you want.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Bird: I, for one, would sooner see a lot wider, less of them there, and not as deep to get
that, and I think that would match up much better against that property than some long,
narrow thing that we are --
McKinnon: That's, actually, one of the things I wanted to talk with the developer about
before you guys close the Public Hearing, have a chance to get back to you on that.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 61 of 78
Bird: And we also -- I'd like to make sure that all parties around there was notified of
this meeting that you had with them.
McKinnon: And, Councilman Bird, just to follow that up, the city sent notifications as
well for those meetings and, you know, the city has the applications and knows how to
contact those people that have to deal with this if there were additional questions.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Before we do that, maybe I could ask a question, too. Anna, could you back up
the one slide that's basically the north Meridian area, the one that's got the colors on it?
There we go. I mean I think this is a situation, Mr. McKinnon, and I guess it's more of
your comment. You know, when we approved this subdivision and this subdivision, I
don't we think we had five people come to both who had -- and these two subdivisions
are three times the size of this. But this is very typical -- and the Mayor has really hit on
the point that I guess I had a hard time figuring exactly what my concern is, is these
didn't have -- the developer basically bought all the property of the people that were
around it that would have any issue. That's not the case here. This is not exactly an
exact definition, but this is an in -fill development. There is a lot of development around
this property and I think as Councilman Bird said, it seems like -- at least our testimony
is that they worked very diligently to attempt to transition this piece or this portion of the
property, but not really the rest of it and I don't think that you needed to transition by
building 10,000 square foot houses, but I guess I -- I think the five acre parcel is the only
one that really seems somewhat compatible with the area, because there are other
options. I mean this is not a -- this is not a bad subdivision, I think Farwest has built a
lot of good subdivisions. I like the open space, I like the streetscape design, I like the
pathway design in it, but this is pretty dense. I mean in the design of this, the trade-off
to those pluses is the lower lot sizes, the smaller lots sizes to have the increased
density and I recognize it's still four units per acre, but it is really squished in here
compared to some of the other ones we have seen and it doesn't fit these other homes.
These are not -- many of these homes I don't think are going to redevelop in the
immediate future and I guess that's the problem I'm having with it is I don't really see
these redeveloping. I don't see people tearing down their 10,000 square foot house in
the next year and a half. So, I don't see that transition that I think is critical when you
are having to design among existing homes that realistically aren't going to be
redeveloped in the immediate future. And I don't that you got an answer to that, I guess
that's just my concern and maybe as you talk to your client, you know, figure out how
you are going to address that.
McKinnon: Can you give me a few seconds?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird and, then, Mr. Wardle and Mr. McKinnon.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 62 of 78
Bird: Before he meets with his people, I believe along there where we got cattle -- and I
know Mr. Adkins stated he didn't have any cattle, but Mr. Priddy has cattle -- and I don't
know if they have horses or cattle out there or anything, but I would think that if -- they
can put the vinyl fence up, but in -- on the side of the property owner on Mr. Priddy's
and that area, I would recommend that the minimum be six foot chain link fence for
cattle along the inside of his property or on the property there. I know we have got laws
that protect the agriculture and everything, but that still don't make it right if some kid
gets killed by some bull.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to follow up on a comment from Mr. Nary and I don't
-- the five -acre parcel here, I don't think that's the answer for that whole section. I think
there is a better transition. And I don't think Mr. -- I think there are opportunities around
-- around this perimeter that are more dense than one acre lots that will fit. I just didn't
see them in this application.
De Weerd: Thank you. We will go ahead and take a recess and, then, you and Mr. --
whoever can rebut. Okay. I will call a ten-minute recess.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order again. Is the applicant --
McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 725 South Crosstimber. Thanks for the recess. It was
helpful. I had a chance to talk with some of the neighbors and we didn't come to a full
resolution yet, but there are some things that we would be willing to do to try to bring the
transition into compliance. Anna, could you go forward to the next slide? Thanks. One
thing we just need to point out, we are dealing with a large piece of property and looking
at it all on one piece of paper -- you know, one slide, this is a very large piece of
property with a lot of homes in it. Just to point out what we are dealing with here in size
and scope of this, just to get an idea, is from landscaping buffers on each side of this
street are 25 feet wide. That's the same width as you see from Lochsa Falls on Linder
Road. These are very large, wide landscape buffers along there. There is large open
spaces in these locations and these are the -- this is the largest open space that
Farwest as ever done in one of their subdivisions. You're talking about eight -- 17 acres
of open space. It's a large amount of open space. The buffer on McMillan is actually as
wide as you see in Two Rivers. This is a very large -- large berm that you're going to be
able to see -- it's a really large berm, so we are dealing with something that's very big in
scope, something you can be very proud of for the city. Now, let's go back to the
transition issues. There we go. With Mr. Lee's property, the initial plat that he looked at
showed five -- showed four lots there. We are willing to get rid of one of those lots and
go back to the four lots, the same sizes that he was okay with previously. We will take
out one lot and move it back to that size. In addition to that, over on the Atkins piece
and the Priddy piece -- the Priddy piece over here, we have talked with Marty and Marty
is willing to do a stone wall across there for the agricultural purposes and with a stone
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 63 of 78
wall in place you don't have the same issues with the cattle being able to knock through
that and the safety issues and that's a big concession, but a stone wall that length of the
property would be able to address the issues for that. Again, we are dealing with some
very large setbacks from those houses. The neighbors recognize that we are not going
to be building executive style Spur Wing houses in this subdivision. That's not what this
is. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan doesn't allow for that. It says three to eight
dwelling units per acre, which is what we are doing here. Along the western property
line as well we can agree to take out three lots and lengthen all of those that creates the
width that you were talking about, Councilman Bird, to being much wider. That would
be another 180 feet, essentially, to spread out over nine lots, which is going to get you
up over the minimum of 80, more close to 90. Those are some issues that we would be
glad to do. So, we can get those reduced by three lots, spread out that 180 feet equally
amongst those lots and, then, you have less houses. It's very similar to what you see
on this side with the larger lots. Once you get on the north side of this cross street here
those lots are all in the 90s and above range as well and so we have created the
additional width. And so we have got some great distances and, you know, in the past
there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do with the properties that are
adjacent to five acre lots and the 20 acre lots, ten acre lots. One of the things you have
to address in doing that is finding out where the houses are in relationship to that. Most
of these houses that are in relationship to this subdivision are over one hundred yards
away from the subdivision itself. That's a big distance. That's the whole length of a
football field, plus some and it's not reducing the value of that property, because they,
themselves, have a large buffer on their one property from the subdivision itself. It's
hard to buffer agricultural uses sometimes from itself and so we can address that by
widening up those lots and doing the stone fence for the western property line and we
can agree to do those at this time.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. McKinnon, why don't we -- I don't like to -- I, for one, don't like to pass on a
preliminary plat without seeing the actual footprint, so why don't we continue this for a
week and give you a chance to redo your lots and stuff and so that we can actually get
a feel for it. I mean we are not all planners and builders and stuff, so we'd like to just
actually see how they compare up against the other stuff in some kind of a coordinated
drawing -- scale drawing or something. If we continued it for a week, would that give
you time to do that?
McKinnon: That would give us time to do that.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 64 of 78
Nary: Mr. Bird, the only thing I would suggest -- is a week enough time for these
neighbors to see that, too?
De Weerd: And for staff to evaluate it.
Nary: And for staff to review it. I mean that would be the only thing about a week is I
want these folks to have the opportunity to see what you're proposing, so that they have
an opportunity to comment.
McKinnon: That's a question for the neighbors as far as the time frame that they'd like
to see that, but in talking about the things that I just mentioned, it's line work for drafting,
it's something that could be accomplished very quickly. It's moving lines and creating
new distances for that variance, but that's something that can be handled very quickly at
a drafting level. It's something that, you know, we could have ready, you know, by --
sometime in the afternoon tomorrow or Thursday and it could go to the neighbors and
they'd have the weekend to take a look at that and work over those issues and we could
have it to the staff in the same time frame.
Powell: We would need it dimensioned.
McKinnon: That's correct. Dimensioned. It's just line work, it's just moving the one line
and erasing and moving other lines over. That creates the new dimensions.
Powell: You have got fast draftsmen.
McKinnon: Well taken. The neighbors just mentioned that they'd like us to work with
them prior to having all the drafting done, so that might be the appropriate direction to
go with that.
De Weerd: And make sure you contact all of the property owners and --
McKinnon: Okay. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge that's what we have done.
De Weerd: Just personally.
McKinnon: They are here now, so I have got them cornered.
De Weerd: Well, not all of them.
McKinnon: I have got a couple of them cornered tonight and I will get with them.
Bird: Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 65 of 78
Bird: With that, I would propose that we continue public hearings Items 18, 19, and 20
until March 23rd, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 18, 19, and 20 for
CUP 03-058, PP 03-032, and AZ 03-027 to March 23rd, 2004. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21: Ordinance No. : RZ 03-012 Request for
a Rezone of .85 acre from R-15 to OT for proposed Strickland
Subdivision by Roy Strickland — 1225 Main Street:
Item 22: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-023 Request for
annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Our next item is 21, Ordinance No. 04-1069 for Strickland
Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1069, an
Ordinance finding that the owner of certain real property Lynn M. Hamilton, has made a
written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property located at 1225
Main Street, Meridian, Idaho, and that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian
from R-15, Medium High Density Residential District Zoning District, to OT, Old Town
District, as defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2-L, repealing all ordinances,
resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer
to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 04-1069 by title only.
It is anyone who would like to have it read in its entirety? Thank you, Frank and Bruce.
Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor, could we have Mr. Berg read the other one and we could pass
them both?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 04-1070 for Soda
Springs Subdivision by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1070, an
Ordinance finding that Charles L. Creech, Senior, and Mary L. Creech, husband and
wife, and Clayton Record and Susan T. Record, husband and wife, the owners of
certain real property generally located at 2310 East Victory Road and 2384 East Victory
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 66 of 78
Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Soda Springs Subdivision, and lies contiguous
or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho,
having 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 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 went through that in record time. Okay.
Council, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Get on it, Mr. Nary.
Nary: What was the number there?
De Weerd: 04-1069 and 70.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move we approve Items 21 and 22, Ordinance No. 04-1069, RZ 03-012 for
Strickland Subdivision and Ordinance No. 04-1070 for AZ 03-023, Soda Springs
Subdivision, with suspension of rules.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinances Nos. 04-1069
and 04-1070. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23: Miscellaneous Items:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 23 was just miscellaneous. I wanted to let you
know that the leadership conference with the Boise chamber that they hold every year is
in Sun Valley on April 25th through the 27th and so if you wanted to go, certainly Peggy
can help coordinate that. Peggy and Will. I anticipate I will probably get information on
that at our board meeting tomorrow, so I will get that in your boxes.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 67 of 78
Rountree: What was the location?
De Weerd: The location is in Sun Valley.
Rountree: Is it at the lodge or is it in Ketchum or --
De Weerd: Most likely the lodge in Sun Valley. At the convention center. The same
place they have always had it.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Mayor's prayer breakfast. I know Councilman Nary is going. Councilman
Bird, are you and your wife going?
Bird: Yeah. I have already got my tickets.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Bird: I ordered. I don't know where --
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: I haven't seen them, but --
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: No idea.
De Weerd: Okay. You're on your own there. Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: I know you're a morning person.
Wardle: Yeah. I'm such a morning person. I will be attending.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: What was that date again? I'm sorry.
Rountree: The 31st at 6:30 in the morning or --
De Weerd: 6:45.
Wardle: I will be there -- probably not with bells on.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 68 of 78
De Weerd: Yeah. Cole Valley Christian.
Bird: Oh, Cole Valley. That's right.
De Weerd: So, you can --
Rountree: I'll let her know. I just can't --
De Weerd: Just whenever. She will take care of it.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: This is a little side note and maybe in a week or two we could invite the Cole
Valley Basketball team that are the state champions, the 1-A champions that are here in
our town.
De Weerd: Will, would you do that? That would be great. Mr. Nichols, are you going
to join us that early in the morning?
Nichols: I may. Originally, I had heard it was the 21st and I knew I was going to be
gone, but now it's the 31st. I'll see.
De Weerd: So, you will let Peggy know?
Nichols: If you will keep it nice and short on the 30th, right? For a joint meeting?
De Weerd: You bet. Oh, yeah. That's a no brainer. And, Mr. Berg, are you going?
Berg: To the prayer breakfast?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Berg: Yes. And my staff is, too.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Berg: Also to mention the joint meeting on the 30th, we are going to try to start at 6:00
o'clock with the P&Z Commission and yourselves.
De Weerd: That's not a.m., that's p.m.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 69 of 78
Berg: 6:00 o'clock p.m. And we will have pizza or something to eat. I wanted to kind of
get -- if you wanted to have it at this location or another locations, if it's the police
station, that may be a more surround round table discussion. Better or not or --
De Weerd: That was nice when we last met
Berg: So, try for the police station? I'll contact the police chief and see if we can use
that facility.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: He's pretty reasonable most of the time.
De Weerd: Most of the time. Okay. We have scheduled August 7th as the Mayor
Council Day at Meridian Speedway and Keith is working with Daytona with the
Speedway on that. August 7th.
Rountree: So, are we driving go carts or --
Bird: No. You're just going in.
De Weerd: I have already asked you about plats. The administrative assistant
ordinance, I e-mailed that to all of you. Can we put it on a Council agenda or do you
need it on a pre -Council?
Rountree: I would say put it on an agenda. It's about time.
De Weerd: Yeah. Okay.
Nary: I think so.
De Weerd: If you will get that on the agenda, Will. And you all saw the stationery and
the business cards. The center business card is the one we will go with. That same
font will be used on the letterhead and Anna is our proofer and our final checkpoint and,
then, we will be -- the whole theory is that we will all have the same letterhead and the
same business cards. We will put it out to bid, so we can get economies of scale on a
printing and, then, everyone will use that printer.
Bird: On the business cards, are we going to do that, Madam Mayor, after you run out
of the ones you have got already?
De Weerd: No. The preference is to just use all standard, one person --
Bird: Excuse me again, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 70 of 78
Bird: Let's don't order so many for the Council and deal. I mean I have got a box and
a half of them things still at home.
De Weerd: Well, please throw them away.
Bird: That's what I'm going to do.
De Weerd: After you get them.
Bird: I suggest you all go out there and look in the back of my truck and that's just
about a third of the paper I have got ready to throw the heck out from the City Council.
De Weerd: Is there anything further that anyone else -- I think you all have been active
in the various committees and regional committees that you serve on. At some point we
do need to figure out how we can keep each other informed. I talked to Councilman
Rountree about that and when he was on Council last he used to go, at the end of the
meeting, and talk about some of those meetings he went to and anything pertinent that
has come up and we would like to see that again, to welcome comments at the tail end
of the meetings to let people know what's going on. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I just was on the air quality board and I discussed it before the
meet with Mr. Nary about putting that on a pre -Council agenda. The air quality is -- as
a board has asked us to come back to our individual Councils and ask about expanding
some of the scope of authority included in that joint powers agreement and so I have
requested that. I will have more information from tomorrow's meeting and sometime in
the next month to bring that towards you, so I just wanted to --
De Weerd: Thank you. As far as air quality, there is a meeting and it conflicted with, I
believe, our leadership module. I did put it in your box, but -- so --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It appears -- we are getting close to the end of, essentially, a quarter of the
calendar year, so I can schedule like -- rather than at the end of a regular meeting when
only our two most avid fans are here, we could probably do this at the end of a pre -
Council meeting, of having that sort of update, maybe, you know, separating out maybe
15 minutes of it or even ten minutes for that type of update and we could do that maybe
in April, one of the April pre -Council sessions to cover that, because we should have
covered most of the meetings that we have covered and that will be done for the first
quarter, so we could do it that way, if Council is okay with that.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 71 of 78
Rountree: I could be a good time.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Just one other thing and, then, we will have something -- you all
received an e-mail on the insurance benefits, kind of outlines -- did you all receive that?
It outlines what the city's cost has been, which I think is important that the employees
see what they are actually getting. They are going to do an annual summary to the
employees. That summary template will be given to the directors at the fourth Tuesday
and I will bring that with me, then, to Council that night for your comment. It will go out
to the employees, so that they know exactly what all they are getting and, actually, what
the cost is. And one other thing -- we need to schedule that, too. One other thing is we
are going to try and bring something back to you on how to recognize employee
longevity. Usually it's been done at the Christmas party and since we didn't have one,
we have quite a list of people from last year and I will be bringing a recommendation to
you on how we can start recognizing our long-term employees, because I think they are
very important to our city and they do need that recognition and that show of
appreciation.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: On that same vein, as we discussed a little bit at the pre -Council meeting, they
asked you to discuss that with the HR director, but if as the numbers were told to me
are true, that we have ten employees who know going into each calendar year they are
not going to get a raise and they are still performing at that outstanding or excels level,
besides the potential bonus we are talking about, I think we want to at least consider
some other recognition for those folks. I think that's a tremendous -- a tremendous
testament to people's work ethic that knowing full well that that's all there is, they still
are performing. But, again, I think you need to at least verify that information that we
had, but I'd at least ask you to consider looking at something like that as how best to
recognize, too.
De Weerd: Well, since one of them was here with us tonight -- Chief Musser has been
with us 20 years as of last year. I think that's well worth recognizing and we really
appreciate him. So, it's -- we do need to do a better job of recognizing those long-term
employees, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Rountree: Gary, he's just a fixture.
De Weerd: Well, he's been with us since Dirk.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 72 of 78
Nary: A great fixture
Bird: I think if you go back to the days, Kenny Bowers has probably got more time than
anybody when he started with the reserves fire and stuff, but -- anyway, you're telling
me these ten people have not had their COLA raises or anything?
Nary: That's all they have gotten is COLA raises. They get nothing for merit.
Bird: Well, I don't think we've given -- I don't think we have given any merit raises the
last few years anyway. I mean we have given -- we have called them -- instead of
COLA, we called them merit, too, and I agree with you, I think we need to make sure
that everybody gets treated the same.
De Weerd: Well, we will work on that. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I had one thing for Council President for pre -Council meetings. With the
weather breaking, we are all going to be hearing about our favorite subject and we need
to probably have some session on the golf course.
Nary: Yes. Oh, that's on our list. Don't worry. In fact, I think we --
Rountree: We are all going to start getting phone calls about that.
Nary: I think Mr. Berg and I have -- trying to get the date finalized and get that done, so,
yes, Iagree.
De Weerd: Anna or Gary? Yes, Gary.
Smith: Madam Mayor and Council, I just wanted to put in a plug for the satisfactory
and competent employees, because we do have some, and I realize that the -- and I
agree that -- at least at this point, anyway, that the merit raises probably should be for
the excels and the outstanding, of which we have some of those, too, but we need to be
able to recognize that we are always going to have satisfactory and competent
employees. The competent employees -- he or she that comes to work, does their job,
they come to work at 8:00, they leave at 5:00, but they do their job, they don't put in any
big extra effort, but we are going to have them. We always will. They are the C
students. And so I just don't feel -- I want to make sure that you don't lose site that that
is a fact. We are not going to be able to have all excels or all outstanding employees.
It would be nice if we did for sure, but I want to be sure that we figure out some way to
recognize them and the Mayor has given us, as directors, some information from HR to
look at and bring back to her, which will come back to you, as some kind of a reward. I
have got some competent and satisfactory employees in the engineering department.
We have some at the wastewater department. Now, I don't want to get rid of them, but I
get the feeling that that's -- that that's what we should do. Do I have the wrong feeling?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 73 of 78
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Yes, you do.
Bird: Yeah.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Smith: Because that's not what I heard tonight. I mean not from the general group, but
I did hear that. I heard a comment along those lines and I guess I'm -- maybe I'm -- I
hope I'm not stepping out of line, but I just -- I felt strongly enough that I wanted to say
something about it. I went home, ate something, thought about it, came back.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, thank you for coming back, Gary, allowing Council to answer and clarify
that. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I guess from my perspective, Gary, I don't think -- I don't think my intention
was to say that we should get rid of marginal employees. I think my perspective is
what's merit is -- truly should be meritorious and that's what a merit raise is for. There
are other ways -- and we have given cost of living raises and I guess I disagree with Mr.
Berg, up until 2003, at least that I was aware of, we have given a merit raise and a cost
of living raise.
Smith: That's correct.
Nary: So, we have always given those two things. In 2003 we only gave one and it
really isn't a cost of living raise, it was actually in excess of the cost of living, but it was
an attempt to make sure we kept up with our benefits costs for the employees.
Smith: Yes.
Nary: I'm not saying to get rid of those folks, I'm saying that merit should be merit and
when people get a merit raise, they should feel like they really earned it. That doesn't
mean there isn't other ways to provide incentives and that's what those alternative
methods are for, for the employees who maybe aren't, but also sending that message to
them and the others that what really gets rewarded, what's really going to get those
extra kudos or browning points or whatever you want to call it, is truly meritorious work,
raising that bar and raising that standard. There are folks that, you know, may try as
hard as they can and aren't going to get there and that's why we need to build those
other types of incentives to make sure they are still -- you know, like to work here, that's
still a positive work experience.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 74 of 78
Smith: Right.
Nary: But merit should be merit.
Smith: Right.
Nary: That's all it was. It wasn't to say get rid of folks, it's just saying that merit people
should really feel like it was meritorious.
Smith: I appreciate that, Councilman. I really do. And I agree, I mean there is
exceptional employees and they should be rewarded. I guess I'm concerned that how
long are the satisfactory and competent employees going to be here if there isn't some
kind of a reward for the work that they do do, if there isn't a cost of living increase or if
there isn't some kind of other kind of ability for their salary to increase.
De Weerd: Well, I guess, Gary --
Smith: I know I have been in my position for I guess it's three years, maybe it's four
years, there has been no merit increase and I know there are another -- I don't know
how many, ten, eleven employees that are in the same situation and that's fine, I mean I
haven't slacked off, you know, I work as hard as I have always worked, but -- and I
understood that, that we were at the tops, I mean that's just the way it is, so I just don't
-- I just don't want to lose the fact that we have competent and satisfactory employees
that do their job and sometimes they make mistakes, there is no doubt about it, but if
they are not making -- if they are not making mistakes, that means they are not doing
something.
Bird: That's right.
Smith: I guess that's all I have got to say.
Bird: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Gary, 1 just wanted to comment -- and that's why I asked Janice to do that
insurance benefits or benefits summary is those employees that, you know -- and we
haven't yet done this, but if they were not to get a merit, they certainly continue to get
more money -- not in their paycheck, but more money they are getting in their benefits
and I handed that out at the director's meeting this morning and you can see how much
those have increased and maybe we need to do a better job in showing the city is
absorbing and actually adding to the value of their benefits package and, thusly, their
wage, because if we didn't it would be coming out of their pocket and, then, they would
really be falling behind.
Smith: Sure. And I agree and I appreciate that, because that is important information
that every employee needs to know, because it is a benefit and they don't realize it.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 75 of 78
De Weerd: And, then, I guess we do need to do a better job at saying we appreciate
you and that's what the incentives that we are asking -- the way to say thank you and
even if it's with a shirt or if it's with a coupon, it is a way that we can say you are valued.
You may not have gotten a merit increase, because you just do show up to work, you
do what's minimally expected and -- but we do care. There is a role that everyone
plays.
Smith: And I appreciate that and I understand and I see that from the requests to look
at these types of things, these other rewards, but I just heard a couple comments
tonight that kind of upset my apple cart a little bit and so I just wanted to come back and
kind of clear my air, I guess.
De Weerd: Well, I appreciate that.
Smith: I appreciate getting the opportunity to do that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Keith, did you --
Bird: Madam Mayor, I have got a -- and I, probably, was the one that said one of the
things and I firmly believe this, that if we have got two deals down there that gets zero
raises that are marginal and needs improvement, why have we got them? I mean there
is a job market out here that's done. Our turnover is --
Smith: Right. I'm not saying marginal needs improvement, Keith, I'm saying
satisfactory and competent.
Bird: Okay. That's --
Smith: Those are the two that I'm talking about. Marginal improvement I agree with
you.
Bird: And I don't think there is a council person or a mayor here that I have been with --
served with that don't appreciate every employee in this city. We take pretty good care
of them. Being from the public side -- or private side, I can guarantee you that there is
not very many people that are going to leave this work here to go public, unless they are
professional -- or private I mean. Unless they are professional. I don't know of any
private places that get 11 paid vacations, sick leave, and we don't have the turnover.
Not that they don't deserve pay raises every year, I believe everybody deserves a pay
raise. If you have kept them a year, they deserve a pay raise. And I appreciate them,
Gary, and I appreciate all you guys and I think everybody up here has -- they have
always done that. Everybody I have ever served with appreciates everything this city
has done. We have got people that go way above the call of duty.
Smith: Well, thank you. I think there are some that do that. Definitely.
Bird: You bet.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 76 of 76
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just so the record is clear on something that I might have stammered or
stuttered or said, I think I'm the one that brought up the question of what is merit last
week and I'll hold to that. In my mind there is an expectation -- if you have a
meritorious program, you are rewarding those people. That's how this has been
presented to me so far as a new Council person and that's how I view it, in terms of
compensating employees fairly and trying to keep them within the job market and those
folks that just do their jobs and thank God we have got them and I agree, you know, we
have got to have them. So, I think maybe the Council has been neglect in
communicating to them the issues as it relates to all the other demands on the city and
the demands that the City Council apparently has done prior to me coming back to at
least maintain a livable wage and fairly -- I think quite nice benefit package in not having
the employees continue to have that erode at their sours as well. So, I think -- I agree,
we need to let folks know that that's going on. Maybe this year the thought is that that
is the cost of living increase that sometimes folks took home, when the insurance rates
didn't increase and maybe next year of the benefits don't increase and we are looking at
that, then, they will actually see it to be able to take home. But, you know, having said
that, I understand what you're saying. I deal with it every day. I deal with a little
different issue, though. I mean three years of nothing, even for meritorious people, is
tough to deal with, but --
Smith: I understand that. Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I feel like I need to jump in here just real quick, regardless of whether I said
anything or not.
De Weerd: I'm sure something was said.
Nary: I think I'm the only one that did that.
Wardle: And certainly just -- I think I was the only one that didn't, but reaffirm that
satisfactory and competent employees are very important to the city and so I just would
like to reflect that.
Smith: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Any further business in front of the Council tonight?
Will, did you have something a long time ago?
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 77 of 78
Berg: No. Just a reminder of a meeting on the 15th at 11:00 o'clock. We are inviting
the Council.
Nary: Ada County Emergency Management --
Berg: Yes.
De Weerd: Yes. And, then, for lunch afterwards?
Berg: Yes. Okay.
Bird: What's this?
Nary: Ada County Emergency Management tour at the public safety building.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: At 11:00.
Berg: Monday, the 15th, at 11:00 o'clock.
Bird: Anyway, don't forget the pictures next week.
Berg: Pictures are next week, so make sure you get your memo on what to dress --
De Weerd: Just remember to dress appropriately and dark with light shirts.
Bird: And don't forget to be able to button up your coat.
De Weerd: The jacket has to be able to --
Bird: I'll get some white for my teeth --
Nary: We need to adjourn so Mr. Willis doesn't have to keep writing all that down.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
Meridian City Council
March 9, 2004
Page 78 of 78
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:17 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
1
MAYOR TIDE WEERD \ „Of
ATTEST: ((�� �r yr`�NAo��Po��?� `a
rF
SEAL
WIWAM G. BERG, J , CI Y CLEfRK p�
NC?
Cb
fm gait,
-'� , 6 , g4--
DATE APPROVED