HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 03-23CITY OF MERIDUN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Presented
3. Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 27, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting: Approve
B. Approve minutes of February 10, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting: Approve
C. Tabled from March 16,2004: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: AZ 03-022 Request for annexation and zoning of
5 acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler IDealy Parcel! by BRS
Architects — southeast comer of East Ustick Road and North Eagle
Road: Move to April 6, 2004 Meeting
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
021 Request for reconsideration for annexation and zoning of
114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C -G zones for proposed
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. -L_by Packard Estates
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Eagle Road: Table to April 6, 2004 Meeting
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
024 Request for reconsideration for revised Preliminary Plat
approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a
Meridian City Councit.4genda-March23,2U114 Page I of
All materials presented at public meetings shah become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
plaase contact the City Ciork's Office at 888-44333 w leas 48 bows prior m rite public ineenag.
proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Table to April
6, 2004 Meeting
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-041 Request for reconsideration for revised Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use
with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and
increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Table to April
6, 2004 Meeting
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law f ro Approval: PP 03-
043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 commercial
building lots 1 common lot on 15.8 acres in a C -G zone for
Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron — northeast corner
of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road: Table to April 6,
2004 Meeting
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-066 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a modification to
the existing Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for
Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron — northeast comer
of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road: Table to April 6,
2004 Meeting
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office
and retail use in a C -G zone as required by the Final Plat for
Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams — south of
North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue: Table to
April 6, 2004 Meeting
J. Development Agreement: AZ 03-015 Request for annexation
and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Sacreland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC —
northeast comer of South Locust Grove Road and East !Victory
Road: Approve
7-K. Development Agreement: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation
and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler /
Cobbs / Eagv / Ru we by BRS Architects — southwest corner and
southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Table to April 6, 2004 Meeting
Meridian City Council Agenda— March 23, 2004 page 2 of 5
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for dimbiblies related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4933 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
6. Department Reports
A. Public Works Department — Brad Watson
1. Request for Latecomers Agreement — Overland Road
Water Line Extension by Bodily RV, Inc.: Approve
B. Parks and Recreation Department — Doug Strong
Request to transfer funds in the amount of $13,000.00
from Lochsa Falls to Bear Creek Park to complete
sidewalks: Bring back with Contract
C. Planning and Zoning Department -- Anna Powell
Discuss letter of support for the City of Star Area of
Impact Amendment: Discussed
D. Police Department — John Overton
1• Grant Application for Anti Drug Coalition Coordinator:
Approve
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval for 75 single-family
residential building lots and 11 common lots on 22.16 acres in an R-8
zone for Champion Park Subdivision No 2 by Hillview Development
Corporation — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Approve
9. FP 04-016 Request for Final Plat approval for 35 commercial building lots
and 4 common lots on 80.51 acres in a C -G zone for Silverstone
Campus Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — east of South Eagle
Road on the south side of East Overland Road: Approve
10. Continued Public Hearing from March 9,2004: 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:
Continue Public Hearing to April 13, 2004 Meeting
11. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: 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
Meridian City Council Agenda— March 23, 2004 Page 3 of 5
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Saguaro Canvon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of
East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Continue Public
Hearing to April 13, 2004 Meeting
12. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: 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 proposedSaguaro Canvon Estates
Subdivision by Farwest, LLC — north side of East McMillan Road and
east of North Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 13, 2004
Meeting
13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84
acres from RUT to C -G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company —
northwest comer of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Attorney to
Prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for Approval
14. Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by
Centennial Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north
of West Franklin Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning
Commission
15. Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215
residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC —east of North Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission
16. Public Hearing. CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio
homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission
17. Ordinance No. 041072 : AZ 03-015 Request for annexation
and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC — northeast corner
of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Approve
18. Ordinance No. 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 corner
Meridian City Council Agenda — March 23, 2004 Page 4 of 5
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 988-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Table
to April 6, 2004 Meeting
Meridian City Council Agenda— March 23, 2004 Page 5 of 5
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian -
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:28 P.M.,
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree
and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Kenny Bowers,
Bill Musser, Doug Strong, Elroy Huff, Diane Stewart and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Bill Nary
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call the regular City Council agenda -- meeting to order.
It's Tuesday, March 23rd. Thank you all for joining us here tonight. I will start with roll
call attendance. Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will, please, rise and
join me in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Thank you. Our next item -- we have added a community invocation to our
agenda. We don't wish to offend anyone. Please take this moment, if you don't do it in
prayer, to reflect and have a time to just gather your thoughts. We have Item No. 3 is
our community invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with the Meridian Gospel
Tabernacle. Thank you forjoining us.
Roberts: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council, for the opportunity. Shall we pray.
Again, most gracious and kind Heavenly Father, we do pause to thank you for your
many blessings in our lives daily. We ask this night as we invoke your presence that
You would cause our hearts and our minds to be joined together, that we might be able
to cause the furtherance of the business of this meeting to be done with wisdom and
knowledge and grace. We are so thankful for this wonderful community and the many
blessings that you have brought to us. We ask this night just for your many blessings to
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 2 of 63
continue and cause there to be a true wisdom to prevail in this meeting, in Jesus
Precious name we ask, Amen. Good bless you all.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Okay. Item 4 is the adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have got some changes on the agenda. Items 10, 11, and 12 needs to be
tabled until April 6, 2004.
De Weerd: 13th.
Bird: 13th. No. Thirteen isn't in this, it's 10, 11, and 12.
Nary: April 13th
Bird: Oh. April 13th. Oh. Okay. Table that to April 13th. And Item No. 18, the
ordinance -- I understand we don't have the right description of the property; is that
right, Anna?
Powell: We just got a description in at 3:30 this afternoon. We anticipate that it will be
right, so it's fine to go ahead and adopt the findings. We just wanted you to know that
we may have to work with the applicant before you can adopt the ordinance.
Bird: That's what I'm talking about, the 18th -- Item 18, so we need to -- we need to
Postpone it --
Powell: One week.
Bird: Well, it will be two weeks, because --
Powell: That's right.
Bird: Until April 6th. Okay. And, then, on the Consent Agenda, items D, E, F, G, H and
I need to be tabled until 4/6/04 and Item K needs to be moved to 7-K, so it can be
discussed. And, then, we need to add an Item L in the Consent Agenda and that's the
Bodily latecomer's agreement, Overland Road water line extension by Bodily RV,
Incorporated. And with that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve the revised
agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 3 of 63
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. We did have a
couple of additions to department reports. One came in a memo form from Brad
Watson on the Overland Road rebuild and the other one is by the police department to
discuss the grants that they are pursuing.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bird, on the Consent Agenda items, you said there was -- was it D, E, F, G, H
and I?
Bird: D, E, F, G, H, I.
Nary: Okay. All to the 6th?
Bird: Uh-huh. So, we want to add a police and on the Public Works we had one -- the
Overland Road. Is that right, Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: So, the motion maker is okay with that?
Bird: Motion to move to change that, yeah, as stated.
Rountree: Second approves.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. All those in favor please say aye. All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 27, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of February 10, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
C. Tabled from March 16, 2004: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: AZ 03-022 Request for annexation and zoning of
5 acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler (Deals Parcel) by BRS
Architects — southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle
Road:
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 4 of 63
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
021 Request for reconsideration for annexation and zoning of
114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C -G zones for proposed
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Eagle Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
024 Request for reconsideration for revised Preliminary Plat
approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a
Proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC —south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-041 Request for reconsideration for revised Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use
with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and
increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC --south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law f ro Approval: PP 03-
043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 commercial
building lots 1 common lot on 15.8 acres in a C -G zone for
Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron — northeast corner
of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-066 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a modification to
the existing Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for
Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron — northeast corner
of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office
and retail use in a C -G zone as required by the Final Plat for
Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams — south of
North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue:
J. Development Agreement: AZ 03-015 Request for annexation
and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC —
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory
Road:
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 5 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As stated before, Items 5-13, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G, 5-H, 5-1 need to be tabled to April 6th,
2004. Item K needs to be taken off the Consent Agenda and moved to Item 7-K on the
regular agenda and we need to add Item L, which is the latecomer's agreement for
Overland Road water line extension by Bodily RV, Incorporated. And with those
changes, I move we approve the Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Will you authorize --
Bird: And the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
as amended. 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 — Gary Smith
1. Request for Latecomers Agreement — Overland Road
WaterLine Extension by Bodily RV, Inc.:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item 6 is Department Reports and we will
start with Public Works. Brad Watson.
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I apologize for getting this on at
the 11th hour. This just came up late last week and developed into Monday. This
involves the Silverstone Phase 2 project and ACHD's rebuilding or widening of Overland
Road fronting that project. It has come to our attention that there is at least two septic
systems in those houses on the north side of Overland Road. There is an exhibit up on
the projector, if that helps for reference. Two of those septic systems are going to be
dislocated by the road widening. ACHD is asking us what it would take to get them
hooked up to sewer. The mechanics of all that we can take care of. The issue here is
if they are allowed to hook up to sewer, we have said that they need to hook up to water
as well and I'm not sure that they really want to do that. Thirdly, we have said that
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 6 of 63
traditionally or historically we have required them to annex as well if they are contiguous
to the city limits and Bruce Mills is here, maybe he can speak to this a little bit. It
doesn't appear that those residents are real eager to join our city. So, we are just trying
to get a little guidance in fairly short order on what we need to do here. ACHD indicated
to me that they are meeting with their commissioners to discuss this tomorrow morning.
That's why we are here. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: I guess, Brad, I would like to know -- it seems to me like we have had some
flexibility in the past with this and as to annexation, it could be delayed, as well as the
water hook up. Have we had incidences that we have done anything different?
Watson: Madam Mayor, there has been a variety of different circumstances and they
are all a little bit unique. On the South Slough project, those that wanted to connect
were required to annex if they were contiguous. Those that didn't want to connect didn't
have to do anything, but those were the people that wanted services. These people are
being required to hook up by the road -widening project. The one instance that I can
think of that might be somewhat similar was on the Locust Grove Road project where
Marvin Everett, his septic system was in the right of way that was being purchased by
ACHD and we allowed them to connect to sewer and I -- I should have brought that, but
I think it was either a five or ten -- I think it was five year sunset period that he needed to
apply for annexation.
De Weerd: And did he need to hook up to water?
Watson: Maybe Bruce can help me out on that one. I don't believe so
De Weerd: Okay. Bruce?
Mills: Madam Mayor, Council, unfortunately, I don't know the details on that particular
one. However, this may be an internal thing with ACHD on communication. I was only
aware of one parcel and that, actually, it might not need to be displaced as part of the
Project. It's in our right of way a few feet, but because we are shifting the road to the
south -- this is over by Jade, it's behind our sidewalk, so I'm not entirely sure that it's
going to have to get hooked up, but what we were trying to anticipate is what -- what's
going to happen if, in fact, we do wind up hitting one or more of these drain fields during
our project, what options are open to us and that's why we contacted Brad to try to find
this out.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Is there anyone else that you wanted to speak to
this or any of the neighbors here that are affected? Okay. Council?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 7 of 63
Rountree: I guess I'm confused as to what the action is. Are we being asked to kind of
establish a pre -policy for the potential of this happening? It's probably not a bad idea.
Or it is actually going to happen and --
De Weerd: I think in several -- in at least one circumstance it sounds like it does affect
this septic.
Watson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, yeah, I didn't, myself, visually review the
plans, somebody else did, and that was the indication I got, that there were two that
would likely be dislocated. The problem with septic systems is no one keeps an
accurate record of exactly where they are, so given Murphy's Law, I don't think I would
want to risk or say that we are not going to hit one. Maybe the direction we need -- or I
need is in the event this happens -- and this all happens very fast out in the Feld and,
you know, the background of this particular project especially, it's going to happen very
fast. If I had a little bit of guidance on what we would tell those homeowners as far as
annexation and connection to water, that would go a long way in helping me.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think Brad hit on at least the one I could recall that we have done was the
gentleman who basically wasn't ready to quit farming his property and that was the
rationale that we used and I think we set a five year limit and said we could -- the
Council could always renew it if they wanted to, but I think that we used the same
discussion and rationale was it was -- his drain field was being displaced, it wasn't his --
it wasn't his request, it wasn't anything to do with him, and that was our reasoning to
allow that. We had set some other conditions and no other development, they couldn't
subdivide it -- maybe Mrs. Powell recalls, but we set some other conditions upon that.
Again, no development and other subdivision would be allowed, but that was a farm
ground. I mean that was just -- that's all it was, was just a big blank piece of ground.
These are people's houses, their front yard. I'm not sure what level of redevelopment --
when that's going to occur in this particular location, so that was the driver in the other
one was that at some point it's likely to redevelop in that spot. Here it's a little harder to
gauge, it's a wider roadway, but these are houses. I'm not sure, you know, if that's the
same criteria. I guess that's kind of what Brad's asking is that -- is that reasonable. I
guess I would say what I said in that one, even though I was the only one, it isn't
reasonable. If they have to hook to the sewer, they have to hook to the sewer, that's
life. It's not what everybody wants to do and if we need to figure out a way policy -wise
on how to address that from a cost standpoint, then, we should address it from a cost
standpoint. But hooking to the sewer should be part of annexation into the city and
that's just the way it -- I guess I think it should be, whether they asked for it or not,
because, otherwise, it's going to be incumbent on everyone to remember why does this
apply to this one and not to that one and what happened next door and I think going
forward it is impossible to manage that in the future, so that's what I think.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 8 of 63
De Weerd: Anna, did you have something?
Powell: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, yeah, just a couple other quick
notes regarding redevelopment of this site. There is a large flood plain associated with
the creek as it runs through here. A lot of this middle ground has flood plain issues with
it. Perhaps not insurmountable, but it -- although they are large properties, they will be
tricky to develop, but I would anticipate, given the huge amount of employment growth
over here that the desirability of these as single family residences may diminish rather --
rather soon here and I would anticipate that we would see some requests for light
offices in these uses to use the existing homes and turn them into offices. Right now
they are shown as low-density development on the Comprehensive Plan. We have
made -- or you have made rulings that, you know, we can kind of bump that commercial
designation that's across the street to catch adjoining properties. Also the Comp Plan
matrix would -- that you will be seeing soon would indicate that it may be appropriate for
these to be light office as well. I just wanted to tell you those things. And the other
thing is, you know, Ada County -- their -- the availability of what you can do in Ada
County is really tied to the availability of sewer and water. So, once they have sewer
and water they could request a rezone from Ada County to commercial designation and
-- or the smaller residential and is that where we want to get ourselves in the position of
being, that we are having to monitor that as well or -- that was all.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Having heard those last comments, I think I agree with the comments that
Council President Nary made about trying to track these and trying to do it pieces, parts
at a time, that if we have to get involved with these, we probably ought to look at the full
infrastructure service, as well as having them be included in the city.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: But I'm still confused as to what the action is, other than providing general
direction to the city engineer.
De Weerd: I guess, in essence, you're saying follow the ordinance. If they need to
hook up to sewer, they'll need to hook up to water and apply for annexation. So, that
that's what I heard. Do you need anything further?
Watson: Madam Mayor, no, that's great, just -- I will proceed that way. Thank you.
B. Parks and Recreation Department — Doug Strong
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 9 of 63
1. Request to transfer funds in the amount of $13,000.00
from Lochsa Falls to Bear Creek Park to complete
sidewalks:
De Weerd: Okay, thank you, Brad. Okay. Parks and Recreation Department. Doug
Strong.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, an update on Bear Creek Park. We
have recently completed the restroom building. As you recall last fall, we were bidding
this project. It's now complete and in looking at what else we need to do in the park, we
bring this request forward to you tonight to do some additional work while we are in
there and, actually, have a portion of the park kind of torn up around where the restroom
construction was. So, what you're looking at is a request to move some money from the
Lochsa Falls account that we currently have to Bear Creek to do, essentially, flat work
to connect the restroom to the rest of the park with sidewalks, put in drinking fountain
pads, and to build a pad around where we are building an irrigation pump house. So,
the diagram of what's being proposed is attached, if you have questions about how it's
all going to connect through the park. There is some concern for ADA accessibility,
certainly to be able to get people in wheel chairs from other parts of the park to the
restroom, so we need sidewalks for that, and, then, also a portion of this proposal is a
service road to get into a maintenance area that's a part of the restroom building. When
you come in off the street we need to be able to get service vehicles into the building
and into the maintenance room on that building, either with a concrete roadway or an
asphalt roadway into the park. Otherwise, we are driving on grass to get there. So, if
there is specific questions about what -- the detail of what we intend to do there, Park
Superintendent Leroy Huff is here to answer those questions if you have anything
specific.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Doug or Elroy or Diane?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess what I'm a little curious is that for what you're contemplating doing is
beyond -- unless I heard wrong, like the irrigation pump and stuff, it really has nothing to
do with the restroom.
Strong: No. Actually, none of what we are -- there is no connection to the restroom
construction. This would be additional enhancements that we would be asking for, for
the park in next year's budget, unless we do them now, and what I'm proposing is we do
them now while we have portions of the park already torn up. It's better than coming
back in next year and --
Nary: Tearing it up again.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 10 of 63
Strong: -- tearing it up again.
Nary: Where was the idea to do this before? I mean I guess what I'm asking why are
we wanting to change this and add this now? When were we going to do it otherwise
and why didn't we think we would do it when we built the building at the same time?
Strong: We had -- part of the problem with doing it when we built the building is that
until we got on the site and knew how we were going to situate the building for sure, we
didn't know how the sidewalks would connect, so we held off on connecting the
sidewalks.
Nary: But we knew we would have to put a sidewalk in.
Strong: Yes.
Nary: I mean wouldn't we? We weren't going to have it in the middle of the grass, so -- I
mean -- so we anticipated sidewalks and the pads and all that stuff, we just didn't know
where they were going to go?
Strong: In the original master plan there is actually quite a lot of concrete work
contemplated for this park up through the center of the ball fields and since that's not
being proposed anymore in what we are proposing to do with this.
Nary: Okay. Didn't we have money budgeted to do that?
Strong: We had not budgeted money for that yet.
Nary: Oh. Okay. It was just part of the master plan?
Strong: It was part of the master plan. So, part of it was deciding how to -- how we
wanted to connect to the restroom building at some point after the building was in place
and we could get some better idea of how traffic flows would work to and from the
building.
Nary: All right. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Doug is this -- is this cost -- is this going out for bid or has it been bid or are we
doing it in-house or what?
Strong: I'll have Elroy address that.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 11 of 63
Huff: Mayor and Council Members, I took some prices on what it would take to do that
and that's what I base that cost off of. Am I speaking loud enough?
Bird: Yeah. And I understand that, Elroy, and I have no -- but what is the plans to do it?
Are we going to let it go out for bid and do it that way or are we going to try to do it in
house?
Huff., No, we won't do it in house.
Bird: Uh?
Huff: We won't do it in house.
Bird: Smart.
Huff: But what I would do is -- I took some prices for that work, which is less than what
was in the original master plan, less actual square footage of concrete, and so we will
now -- because if we do it this way -- and I will probably take a couple of more prices to
make sure that I'm well rounded in my quotes.
Bird: The thing that I -- without having a firm bid and stuff, are you sure that 13,000 is
going to be enough?
Huff: The one that I have -- the one I based that on is a firm one.
Bird: Is a firm quote?
Huff: That one is a firm one.
De Weerd: So, you have already done some estimates to --
Huff: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: -- know what the costs would be.
Huff: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay.
Huff: That's what that one is based on.
Bird: Okay. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 12 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, what, are you going to bring back a contract with some -- I mean you did
informal bids, then?
Huff: Yes. Quotes.
Nary: Okay. And so you're going to bring back a contract -- we are not going to
approve 13,000 dollars today, you're going to bring back a contract that's going to have
an amount in it and some work attached to it, so we are not going to come back later
and say we need 5,000 dollars more. So, we are not approving money today, we are
just approving the concept of doing this for about 13,000 bucks.
Huff: That's what it would cost to do it, yeah.
Nary: Okay. And we are going to get a contract and we are going to have -- and we
are going to see that before we approve this expenditure?
Huff: That will be fine
Nary: That wasn't what you were going to do, but that's what you're going to do now.
Huff: No, it's -- always have to let a contract and --
Nary: Okay.
Huff: -- if it's over a certain amount, you will have to see it or have to have some
approval on that, so --
Nary: Okay. Great.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, when Doug and I discussed this project, I asked those
questions and the response I got was this is part of the master plan, was not included in
the work for the restroom, it was not budgeted for last year, however, this presents an
opportunity to do this work at a reduced scope of what the master plan entails as far as
concrete and what I'm hearing Council say is we agree with it in concept, but we need
confirmed numbers and, then, we will transfer, essentially, that exact amount. Is that
what I'm hearing?
De Weerd: I think what is -- the discussion is, is it's okay to move forward, to go and get
the bids and, then, bring it back. Is that correct? And, then, the money will be
authorized to transfer.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 13 of 63
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That's the way I understand it. I hope I'm understanding right. But what they want
is to be able to take whatever it is, whether it's 12,900 or 13,000 and move it from
Lochsa to Bear Creek within the budget and -- that's the way I understand it, so I don't
know what we would be passing on now.
De Weerd: And it can be authorized at the same time that the contract is approved.
Bird: Yeah.
C. Planning and Zoning Department -- Anna Powell
Discuss letter of support for the City of Star Area of
Impact Amendment:
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Our next item -- is there anything further? Okay. Thank you.
The next item is Item C, Planning and Zoning Department. Anna Powell.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just have a very brief -- really, an
introduction to a topic today. I had met with the zoning administrator for the City of Star,
who is here tonight, Craig Eckles. For those of you who don't know him, maybe he will
wave his hand. There he is. The city of Star is in the process of negotiating a new area
of city impact with Ada County and we met briefly and he kind of discussed what
thoughts the city had regarding where they wanted to go. They do want to go up to
Chinden. We would share the area from Black Cat to McDermott across Chinden Road,
so -- and he had asked me if the Council would be willing to do a letter of support, so I
said I would ask you and that's all I'm doing tonight. We don't have a lot of information.
Since that time I believe you all got individual e-mails from Nicole Baird Spencer with
the City of Eagle. The City of Eagle is also trying to negotiate a new area of city impact
with Ada County and Ada County -- I think in a nutshell they said you go talk to Star,
you guys work something out and, then, you come back to us together and that's where
it stands right now. So, they have requested that we not do a letter of support, that we
just stay neutral at this time. And that's the information I have. I believe the Mayor has
additional information.
De Weerd: Not of any importance.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: And Craig is certainly here to answer any questions if Council has any. The
planning director is suggesting -- and I think Star is okay if we just stay neutral. If we do
have questions as it progresses, that they are willing to come and do a presentation to
answer any questions that might come up. I do think it is important that we decide at
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 14 of 63
some point and have some conversations -- I think there is some concern with our fire
district and Mr. Eckles and I had talked about that prior to the meeting. So, we just
need to do a little bit more exploratory ourselves to see if there will be an impact on our
services and answer some of those questions that have come up as well and I think that
dialogue can certainly happen. Is there any questions? Okay. Thank you, Anna.
D. Police Department — Captain Overton:
De Weerd: We did add a fourth report from our police department and I believe that
Captain Overton is here to speak on the grant that is in front of you.
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for allowing us to come in
at the last minute on this. You have before you a grant application form. It's an Edwin
Burr Memorial Grant. It is for a Meridian Police Department anti-drug coalition
coordinator as part of the Mayor's anti-drug coalition. On the front you will see that the
cost to the city for the one-year grant would be 14,000 dollars in a 25 percent match.
The grant -- we are asking for 40,405 dollars, for a total cost of 54,405 dollars total
package in the grant. This total cost does include wages, all benefits, and office
equipment and various expenses that this person would need for a full year of work. If
there is any questions, I'd entertain them at this time.
De Weerd: Captain, what additional duties would this position assume?
Overton: The main thrust of this coordinator is going to be, first off, being our sole
coordinator for the city on all programs that are being run by various organization within
the city now or within the Treasure Valley that we don't have in the city at this time. This
person would be able to bring all those programs to one central point and begin to
develop trainers and instructors scheduling for our various businesses and
neighborhood groups and allow us to coordinate our efforts with our youth and our
residences and our families on this drug education and prevention. Furthermore, this
person will also become an instructor that we can send out and schedule out to put on
this training in various places in the city.
De Weerd: Council, I know that the drug free community has come along with the
change in leadership and this opportunity did present itself. I appreciate the advocacy
of the police department in trying to be a very active and pro -active -- or a pro -active
part in this effort on saying, no, drugs are not welcome in Meridian and we have had
great response at the drug coalition meetings. There have been well over 40 or 50
people at those meetings, close to 60 on the first one. There seems to be a lot of
interest. We have DEQ and the U.S. Attorneys Office that are offering support and
training as well, so there is a great deal of interest and this is something that will be very
important as being a safe and healthy community. So, I hope for your consideration of
this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 15 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would -- if we need a motion or anything, I would be more in favor of -- for 14,000
of getting this kind of a grant. It's only going to cost us 14. It's very, very important, I
believe. Anything that we can do to be pro -active with drugs and stuff I think is -- helps
the community -- the whole community. And so I would -- I'm sure we can find 14,000
dollars somewhere that we can use.
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is strictly a request tonight for the
application for the grant process and for the Mayor's signature to send it in. We are
facing a deadline of the 26th, which is Friday of this week to get this turned in.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And forgive me, captain, because I'm sure it's in here and I just haven't had time
to read through all of this. This is a non -sworn position, I assume.
Overton: Correct. This is a civilian position.
Nary: A civilian position. And it looks like the grant is just for one year, so to retain that
position we either need to renew this grant -- is this a renewable grant?
Overton: The Edward Burr Memorial Grant, which is an anti-drug from 1988 grant
system does not state year to year how many funds are available. We could apply for it
year after year, but this is specifically a 12 -month grant in front of you.
Nary: So, it's potentially possible that we have to continue funding it at the 54,000
dollar mark or discontinue the position after one year --
Overton: That's correct. We would have to do one of the two.
Nary: And I did note in here, just so I'm clear, that this position wouldn't actually start
until the beginning of the fiscal year, so the 14,000 doesn't have to come out of a
current project, it could be put into the budget request from the police department to
fund, if we are awarded the grant.
Overton: That's correct. This will be a budget enhancement we add into our budget
request for fiscal year 2005.
Nary: Okay. Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess to add to that, is once this program is established and has
been in process for approximately six months, it is eligible for other types of granting
opportunities, so I think we will be able to really evaluate the effect of this other program
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 16 of 63
and see if certainly it is something that is worth re -investing in and there will be a lot of
different types of grants that we can pursue as well. So, it just gets the program a
coordinator and it gets it off the ground to see how effective we can be in pursuing this
approach with very little investment by the city. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor -- and I also agree that this is a -- it's an important step for us to
-- I'm not going to say begin addressing this important problem, because we are
addressing it now with the department. I think it's a good instrument for us to further our
developments within the community in relation to drug abuse and those sorts of
problems.
De Weerd: Thank you
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And I don't have any disagreement with any of that. Like I said, my more concern
was what was our level of commitment. Obviously, we do have to make an assessment
year to year on whether or not to keep that position. A grant position doesn't concern
me in that regard. If we didn't find it to be effective, we could, obviously, discontinue
that. But I wanted to make sure we weren't binding ourselves to continuing it as some
grants are where they diminish the amount, but we can't extinguish the program.
De Weerd: Right. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm not going to speak to the good of this, because I think this
is a good program, but we do get drug down into the minutia and the budget details
always on these things. I don't know that that question that you just brought up,
Councilman Nary, was answered to me. Are there federal strings attached to this grant
that would imply that we have to -- once getting the grant and establishing a
coordinator, have a prescribed period of time that we would have to maintain the
coordinator?
Overton: I haven't read that language in any of the grant application paperwork with this
grant. It was strictly a 12 -month grant, unlike some of the cops grants, we have to make
a long-term commitment.
Rountree: The other question I have is we have talked about -- it is a grant, it is
potentially renewable, depending on the funds available. The document talks about a
project evaluation, but it leads me to believe that this is not just a one time, one-year
program. If it doesn't appear to be working, because it indicates it's going to take
several years to correctly monitor the success and it makes that statement in several
places in the project evaluation. So, my understanding when we enter into this, if we
enter into this, that it's probably going to be a Multiple year project, so I just want that on
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 17 of 63
the record now, instead of in October when we talk about it and that potential becomes
an issue.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, I guess that is true, although the coalition is up and going
right now, so at the end of the term of this -- or this grant, it will have almost completed
a two year period and you will have certain measurements in place. So, that could
possibly fulfill that, but it does award further -- or exploration, so if we proceed forward,
those questions can be asked and when that enhancement is requested for, it can be
answered at that time.
Rountree: That's correct.
De weerd: So, I guess what we need is a motion to authorize myself to sign this, so we
can apply for the grant.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the application for the grant for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the application of the
grant and for the mayor to sign. I don't think we need a roll call. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Captain Overton, for finding this and pursuing it.
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you.
Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
K. Development Agreement: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation
and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler 1
Cobbs 1 Eagv / Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest corner and
southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. Items removed from the Consent Agenda was
item K. I'll ask for comments from Anna.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I actually had squeezed in this whole
conversation on Item No. 18. It's just that we just got new legal descriptions this
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 18 of 63
afternoon and just need a chance to review them. We feel comfortable with you
adopting the findings and we will just -- we are pretty sure it's the right legal description,
we just haven't had a chance to look at it yet. That's all.
De Weerd: Would it just -- is there any real burning issue here that we can't just table it
to the 4th of April -- or the 6th of April? I'm sorry.
Powell: No. That's fine also, because when the ordinance will get adopted, you have
already moved that to that date so that's fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I think it would help take the guesswork out of it.
Powell: Yes.
De Weerd: Or, Council, what is your pleasure?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we table Item No. 7-K, AZ 03-018, annexation for Kissler, Cobbs,
Eagy and Ruwe, to April 6th.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 7-K to April 6th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval for 75 single-family
residential building lots and 11 common lots on 22.16 acres in an R-8
zone for Champion Park Subdivision No. 2 by Hillview Development
Corporation — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Number 8 is FP 04-015, Champion Park Subdivision No. 2. We will
start with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the preliminary plat for
Champion Park Subdivision. The area circled in red is the subject area of the final plat.
The final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. We have
a letter from Engineering Solutions, dated March 19th, saying that they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval, so this is ready for your -- it's a very clean
plat and staff is recommending approval.
Meridien City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 19 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. Since we got a letter from the applicant, there is no need for the
applicant to say anything, unless they would like to. Okay. Any questions or -- I would
entertain a motion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve FP 04-015, final plat for Champion Park Subdivision No. 2.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-015. Any further
Discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: FP 04-016 Request for Final Plat approval for 35 commercial building lots
and 4 common lots on 80.51 acres in a C -G zone for Silverstone
Campus Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — east of South Eagle
Road on the south side of East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9 is FP 04-016 for Silverstone Campus Subdivision. Start
with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the approved preliminary plat
for the Silverstone Campus Subdivision. It was approved -- the conceptual plan was
approved with three different layouts, but this was the preliminary plat. As you know
staff and the Mayor spent quite a bit of time deciding on an appropriate final plat
configuration -- was determined that this would be in substantial compliance. The road
-- this road drops to the south, as you can see, where it would border -- or share a
border with Sutherland Farms. The need for this half street goes away, because this
road is dropping to the southern boundary. These streets -- this street primarily stays
there. We had a new cross street. The upper portion remains primarily the same.
There is a connection to the other Silverstone Corporate Center and, then, this one T's
in. The main road T's in. Brad Hawkins -Clark has provided a fairly detailed comparison
of the approved preliminary plat to the final plat. It does represent fewer building lots.
There is an issue of a little less open space and the applicant is -- has been asked to tell
the Council what their second amenity will be for the planned development at tonight's
hearing. I think they are proposing a picnic shelter and you will need to review that to
decide whether it's an acceptable second amenity before approving the final plat. This
plat isn't as clean as we usually see them, so the engineering staff has added a kind of
generic condition of approval and that's item number 21 and it just says that there are
numerous drafting issues on the final plat map as submitted. The Public Works
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 20 of 63
Department will transmit a red line mark up of the issues to Pinnacle Engineers for
correction. These issues will be satisfied prior to signature on the final plat by the city
engineer. It gives staff the opportunity to still work with the applicant to clean up the
plat, but to move it forward at this time. And Brad also has a revision that he has
requested to speak to.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, just one very minor one on site specific
number 11, the second sentence, applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer
and water mains to and through this proposed development and in parenthesis it says
including Copperpoint Way and McMillan Road. The reference to Copperpoint Way
should reference water only and not sewer and that's all I have.
De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant's representative here?
Please state your name and address.
McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: I'm here tonight representing Sundance Corporation for the plat that we
have been talking about. First of all, I'd just like to thank Council and staff for working
with us. I know it's been a process for everybody and give my gratitude to you and from
the applicant and the owner of the project as well. I have had a chance to read through
the staff report and we agree with the staff report. We will make the changes as
requested by staff. I have had a chance to talk with Bruce Freckleton and received the
red line corrections that Anna was talking about just at the very end, that it's not the
cleanest plat. I've had a chance to receive those and review those. We will make those
red line corrections as requested. One other addition before I get to the open space is
that in talking with Brad Hawkins -Clark about this process and, then, there was a memo
sent to Anna -- I don't know if it was passed along -- to Anna and I don't know if it was
passed along to you. It was a requirement for us to meet with and work with the
commuter ride people to provide a bus stop or other sort of alternate transportation and
we have had a chance to talk with them and I have had a short conversation with them
and we have been talking about putting that area in conjunction with the open space
that we are providing, the open picnic area, sheltered area. That area is just off the
pathway. It's this area that I'm highlighting right now. It's this small triangular-shaped
piece. It's right off the pathway. As you know, the pathway follows the Eight Mile as it
runs through and, then, right off that end would be the picnic area and shelter area. In
talking with commuter ride they said that they felt that would be the most appropriate
place for a bus stop, because it's a central location, it's off of the walking path, and it
already has a picnic shelter shown on the landscape plan for that. So, we have shown
that to be a nice seating area and that would be appropriate for the office types of uses
and the other commercial uses in the area. Other than that, if you have any questions
I'd welcome your questions at this time, but we have read the staff report and agree with
it.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 21 of 63
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. McKinnon, did you have discussions with the southern property -- Sutherland
Farms about the movement of the road? Did they have any objection or concern about
that?
McKinnon: You should have received I think three letters, actually, from Sutherland
Farms and there was an agreement to work with Sundance from Sutherland, to work
with them on that, and so there is an agreement. In fact, the first letter you received
states that there is an agreement in place for them to work together on the completion
of that road.
Nary: And I guess -- and maybe this is in there, too. The adjacent property owner to
the east, was there any contact with him at all?
McKinnon: You should have received a copy of a letter that we sent to Mr. Benafield.
Nary: Is it in here somewhere? There is none in here.
McKinnon: Okay. Well, we had a chance -- I state in the -- stating what the issues were
and he called me back and said I have no issues, other than he wanted me to quit
referring to the ditch as the Eight Mile. He believes that's not the Eight Mile, but he had
no other objections other than that.
De Weerd: Well, if that's all you were dealing with, you were doing well. Any other
questions, Council?
Nary: No. It's probably in here somewhere
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
McKinnon: Thanks again.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-016, final plat for Silverstone Campus
Subdivision, to incorporate all staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-016. Is there any
further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 22 of 63
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: 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 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: 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 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: 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:
De Weerd: Thank you. Items 10, 11 and 12 have been requested to be table to April
13th, 2004. Is there anyone in the audience who came for this particular agenda item?
Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion to continue these three items.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Items 10, 11 and 12, public hearings AZ 03-027, PP
03-032, and CUP 03-058 until our next regularly scheduled meeting -- oh, until the 13th
of April.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to table items 10, 11 and 12 to
April 13th, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Item 13 is a Public Hearing -- we are required by ordinance for those who
testify to be sworn in and so we do it all at the beginning of the Public Hearing section.
So, those that are willing -- or willing to testify or wanting to testify, if you will, please,
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 23 of 63
raise your right hand. This is for all the public hearings. Thank you. Do you testify that
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 13: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84
acres from RUT to C -G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company
— northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you very much. I will go ahead and open Item 13 for AZ 03-025 for
Blue Marlin and we will start with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for annexation and
zoning without a development plan, so all you have before you tonight is the re -zone
request and annexation. They are requesting zoning -- the C -G zoning. The
Comprehensive Plan does show this as mixed use regional, similar to Kissler, Eagy,
Ruwe and, then, Kissler, Dealy, and, then, Redfeather was the other property, the 21
acre Redfeather property just south of Kissler. At the Planning -- and similar to those
applications, staff went into the Planning and Zoning Commission with similar
requirements to have a development agreement that listed the Comprehensive Plan
policies associated with the mixed use regional. At the Public Hearing there were quite
a few people testify and Brad Hawkins -Clark has detailed those in his cover memo to
you. The key change that the Commission did was to delete staffs recommendation on
condition three, which was all Comprehensive Plan policies associated with the mixed
use regional and to replace it with revised language, which, as I said, removes a
requirement to incorporate residential in any future development. They maintain the
requirement for future CUP applications and a condition that future plans include a
continuous public or private road system that extends to the north. The outstanding
issues are, one, the -- deleting the policies associated with the mixed use regional and
that's what's shown on the second page of Brad's summary cover memo and he lists all
the policies that were deleted and staff is -- continues to recommend that those be
included. The second issue was the future development process. Commissioner
Zaremba's motion was somewhat unclear with regard to how future development should
proceed. The exact wording was it was either a conditional use planned development
or subdivision application prior to future development. Generally, you have approved
develop agreements with detailed conceptual use approval, so right now we don't have
any concept plan. If they did a subdivision that would vest them with building rights the
way that the -- it was worded right now. So, currently there is not a mechanism to
review the development that goes on if it were a principal permitted use in the zone.
The third issue is a letter from ITD and that letter regarded the -- the type four access,
which would be only at intersections and at the mile. So, basically, ITD is saying that
this property will likely not have access to Eagle Road. They talk about trying to
maintain some efficiencies on Eagle Road at this point. There is a subsequent follow-
up memo from Sue Sullivan addressed to Brad that also states that they won't be
having an access to Eagle Road and that there should be some sort of back -age road
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 24 of 63
or frontage road through the property that connects to the north. And, then, again, we
had a little bit of -- not exactly clear on the motion from Commissioner Zaremba. The
Commissioner said that the private or public road could or could not extend to the
northern property. Staff feels it's important to get to the northern property in order to get
out to the half mile where there is -- you can see the collector street -- this is in the city
of Boise, but if there were to be another light on Eagle Road, it would be at this mid mile
location and could connect down through as these properties redevelop. So, that right
now there is a private lane that's at the northern border, so you could not connect a
public road to the private lane. So, the actual physical connection couldn't occur until
there was another public road up here, but you could at least provide that opportunity
and plan for it and that's one of the issues. That's the final issue, actually. So -- and,
then, I can give you specifics on what needs to be changed, depending on which of
these you may or may not want to do, these changes to the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation. They have recommended approval and with that I'll end
staffs presentation.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. We will ask the
applicant to come forward. He has up to 15 minutes to present the project. Public
testimony from the citizens are three minutes testimony and, then, the applicant has a
chance for rebuttal. Okay. If you will state your name and address.
Seal: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Jonathan Seal, 600 North
Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of W.H. Moore Company. First, before I
get into, I guess, the meat of what Anna has talked about, I'd like to just take a couple
minutes and explain why we are here tonight as far as just simply an annexation
rezone. I understand that's a little bit different than what you typically see, although
maybe that's changing. What we have found is when we have had large users contact
us on this particular parcel of land, one of the first questions they ask is is it zoned for
this use. If the answer is yes, the conversation continues. If the answer is no, it ends
right there. There is a great deal of properties out there and too little time for these
people to risk the potential that it may not be zoned for that, even though we can state
to them we will promise you can get it, we know we can, it ends right there. And I think
as a real example is if you look at the City Group, now we can talk about it. We did
meet with them back in November and one of the first questions that came out of their
mouth was is your land zoned for our use, which at that point all we knew was a call
center and, of course, our answer was yes. We had elected not to, for a variety of
reasons, but that was one of the key things and I think the reality is had you not had the
land here within the City of Meridian that was zoned for that use of that size, you
potentially would have looked at maybe the City Group either being in another city
within the Treasure Valley or potentially within another state. We have also
encountered the same thing in ours, when we have had -- in fact, we are talking to a
large user right now only because we are moving through this process and it looks like
we are about there, who I think would be an excellent use for this project. So, I just
explain that, I think, to just give you an idea of why we are coming here only for what is
maybe part of the process. With respect to the Planning and Zoning recommendations,
what I'd like to do -- which is the actual document that was approved last time, what I'd
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 25 of 63
like to do is I think we can simplify this. I'd like to go to page two and make some
suggestions here and, then, ask you to be -- that this be approved with these
suggestions. First off, item -- on page two, item 3-A, which starts with priority
annexation, as Anna said -- and that's correct, if you read this it says that we could
submit for a subdivision. Or intention has never been just to do a subdivision. We have
said since the beginning that we will come in here with a planned use development or
conditional uses at the time that we do development, so that we give the city the
opportunity to evaluate and approve what is reasonable for this area. So, with that,
what we would suggest is the word subdivision simply be struck. So, it would,
essentially, read that the DA will require either a conditional use or a planned
development application be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to future
development and I believe that that would address the concern of staff on that issue.
On 3-13 -- and I think this is just a typo -- after application it says for a site specific -- it
should be application or a site specific. If you look at my letter that is in your packet that
I submitted prior to the P&Z hearing it does use the word or, so I think that's just a
simply typo. So, again, it would just read: Development application or a site-specific
plan with any conditional use. And, then, finally, we -- as Anna talked about, we have
talked a little bit about the road system and the access system. I think Mr. Moore is
going to speak, too, but I'll try to maybe articulate a little bit of his thinking. I think his
concern here is that what he's going to end up here with is a project that's basically
going to have thoroughfare going through it. When I first talked to P&Z, my position at
that point was why we don't remove this condition. There was a condition in the initial
thing as a parallel road to Eagle, that this can be addressed in either the planned use
development or the conditional use application and we know what it is. We certainly
acknowledge the fact that there is going to be some type of access system through this
project, but we don't know what that looks like and it seems like that should be
something that should be discussed at the time we come back for either the planned
use development or the conditional use application. At that point, then, you can
evaluate and determine what it should look like, where it should go, what should be the
access point and how it should be handled. So, we really question whether or not we
really need to have this at this point and I think as we read this language in here, then,
we read what staffs recommendations are, it gives us a lot of -- I'll say trepidation about
where this could end up and, as I say, it could be -- I think in Mr. Moore's mind it could
be potentially an 1-84 going through this project. I know that's a little bit of an
exaggeration, but, again, I think we are just simply saying, you know, we will address it
at the appropriate time, but we don't think this is it. I think all we are simply asking for
today here -- and I think as this is, is enable us to annex and rezone this, bring it into the
City of Meridian, allow us to market it and allow us to be able to attract the type of
commercial users I think the city wants and that's simply it and we will be coming back
at a later date and we will have details, then, and we will address the issues that will
determine how this project is going to look. So, I think with that I will answer any
questions you might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 26 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Seal, maybe you could expand a little bit, though. I guess I'm still a little
unclear in reading the minutes and looking at the documents that we have, as to their --
your concerns about those mixed use policies and I think the staff has stated, you know,
we just recently passed, you know, you know, adjacent properties with those types of
policies to do that and had conditional use requirements on them and all. So, I guess
I'm, I guess, a little unclear as to what concerns you have about those policies being a
part of the development agreement.
Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I guess in kind of a summary form, one, I look
at the Comprehensive Plan as a stand-alone document. The fact that these conditions
are put in here or not put in here does not foreclose you from utilizing those conditions.
The Comp Plan by itself stands by itself. I don't see where we want to, I guess,
complicate a development agreement by putting in certain items within the
Comprehensive Plan that already exist and there is -- we are not discussing -- there is
no dispute about those. The other thing is, in my past experience sometimes, is you put
these in and later down the road someone comes back and looks at it and instead of it
being a vague thing or a recommendation, it's determined as something cast in concrete
and, then, we are back here arguing with you saying, well, no, wait a minute, that was
really not the intent of it. So, I guess I'd almost say to you where is the benefit -- where
the purpose of putting it in when you already have that Comprehensive Plan standing
there. We are not changing it today and I think all it is, is it's making the development
agreement more complicated than it needs to be. All we are simply trying to do is
create an annexation and rezone, we are agreeing to a Conditional Use Permit or
planned use development and we will come back to you later and I don't think that that's
any different than any others. So, I guess I'm a little -- I guess I'm a little confused on
the need for it or the purpose for it.
Nary: May I follow up, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Seal, what your argument is, is that we don't need it, because it's
already concrete, but if we put it in there, it might be concrete and I don't -- I guess I still
don't see why this would be any different. You know, the issue for me isn't this
development or yourself or Mr. Moore in developing this property, the issue is, is if for
some reason Mr. Moore decides not to develop this property and sell it, that
development agreement will go with it and without it -- without at least making that clear
with folks, how important we think that is because of this corridor and because of what's
so significant, I don't see how it hurts you, since if it already exists, it's already there.
So, it's not going to hurt to have it as part of that is what the staff was seeking.
Seal: Well, Madam Mayor, Council Members, I guess on the flip side of it, I don't see
where it benefits us either. And, again, that Comprehensive Plan, whether Mr. Moore
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 27 of 63
sells this and the development agreement runs with the land, that Comprehensive Plan
will always be there. To me it's a separate document. Again, I think my main concern is
it has potential to muddy the waters, to maybe create confusion down the road, and I
just question the need for it when we want to try to keep the development agreement as
simple as possible in the process, get to the meat of the subject and address that only.
I don't think you're giving up anything by not having it in there. You know, we are not
trying to change the Comprehensive Plan, we are simply trying to address the issues
that we think are pertinent to this and I think these are the items that we have
discussion here, so --
De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Seal.
Seal: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Mr. Moore, if you will, please state your name and address
Moore: Winston Moore, 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. Mayor De Weerd and
Councilmen. Jonathan and I -- he's going to shoot me, but I don't -- we didn't ask that
those conditions from the Comprehensive Plan be removed. We didn't object to them.
In fact, staffs report says that very thing, that Mr. Seal did not object to the conditions,
Commissioner -- or, Councilman Nary, that you just alluded to. The P&Z did this on
their own. And so I think there is -- I would say -- and I think, again, Jonathan is going
to wish he was working for someone else, but we don't have any problem with that. I
mean they -- those are fine. The one item that I would like to speak to -- and I think I
perhaps owe an apology to staff, because I'm kind of -- we are springing this on them at
the last minute. Not intentionally, but I just -- it just dawned on me the other day that
even two years ago when we spoke with some of you very people about this potential
project, we were talking about a frontage road. A couple of you mentioned, you know,
Eagle Road, as busy as it is, that we would have limited access to Eagle and a frontage
road would make a lot of sense and I did not disagree and as it's evolved there should
be a frontage road, which in the documents here has been changed to back -age road
and, you know, it's one and the same, except they are in different spots, and I have
never had any problem with that, but there has been some creep -- and I don't mean
that in a sarcastic way, but it just kind of snuck up on us and we have gone from
frontage road -- or from -- yeah, frontage road to back -age road, now to a full roadway
system through the middle of this project and that isn't going to work. I mean this is a
private project, a frontage road -- certainly all of you have been to the Crossroads
development and on the west side you may recall that in front of the main building
where the shops are, Cold Stone, Creamery, or whatever it is. There is a back -age
road that runs right along in front of those shops and, then, to the west -- there is a
parking lot to the west and to the west of that there is another -- that would be a
frontage road, I guess, running in front of the pads. There is no public streets going
through there. And so my position is, respectfully, that I don't want this project bisected
by a public road for any reason and there is no need for it. I fully acknowledge the need
to minimize the access points on Eagle Road, but that should be done by the concept
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 28 of 63
that we have been working with all along, which was first a frontage road and, then, a
back -age road.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Moore, what you're saying is you will connect to the north, but your
not -- you're not supportive of a public road per se. You would move the circulation
such as you see at the family center.
Moore: Mayor de Weerd, I don't want -- I'm saying that as far as connecting to the
north, I don't understand the -- if this is -- if this back -age -frontage road is to serve this
project, which clearly it is, I don't think there is any need for it to connect to the private
lane to the north of our property. And, frankly, and beside the point, I guess, if you were
those neighbors and felt that there was going to be a through road running right through
the beautiful property up there, you know, I would think they would all be in here. But it
certainly -- the frontage road, back -age road, whatever it needs to get out of the project,
and, notwithstanding, the note from the lady at Idaho Transportation Department -- and
we have talked to them and that perhaps should concern me, but that is a policy and not
an ordinance. She does say our current access control policy would not allow access to
Eagle Road from this property. A temporary or permanent access would require a
variance to the policy. This is policy, it's not ordinance, and we have discussed it with
them and, obviously, in fairness, she does say it's likely that a variance would be
recommended, because the site has alternate access to Ustick Road. It's hard for me
to conceive a project with that much frontage on Eagle Road -- there must be 1,700
yards or something there, not having an access. We have three accesses there now.
There are three individual parcels and three accesses. Now how that will shake out I
don't know, but it's my thought that the frontage -back -age road, whichever it is, it is, will
allow traffic on Eagle Road to enter our project and exit the project, obviously, without
an access point every couple hundred yards or something. There probably will be one
at the north and one at the south, I would guess, access points, but that road should be
used only to alleviate the traffic situation on Eagle Road an allow people to get into the
project and out without multiple accesses up there. And I will sit down now, but, again,
the thought of having -- whether it's public or private, through road going through this
project -- and, respectfully, it just doesn't make any sense as far as this project goes
and that's what we are discussing.
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Moore? Thank you.
Moore: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: I have one person signed up to testify. Is Mr. Davis here? If you would just
state your name and address.
Davis: My name is Tom Davis and I live at 2740 East Ustick Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 29 of 63
Davis: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I'd like to read this -- I sent in a letter, but
I'd like to read it for the record. It says: I represent the Layton Lateral. We respectfully
request that you require all ditches to be in concrete tile along the lateral. More
specifically, we request the requirement for concrete tile for the Layton Lateral and all
other ditches in the Jasmine Acres and running through W.H. Moore property. The
Layton Lateral is piped in 30 inch concrete from the Settler's Canal at Cloverdale Road
and west along Ustick Road until one-fourth mile from Eagle Road. Further, the lateral
is tiled in concrete north from Ustick along Eagle for 350 feet. From this point it is open
ditch west across Mr. Moore's property to the Davis property. This distance is
approximately 1,320 feet and should be tiled in concrete, not plastic or metal. The
patrons of the Layton Lateral have a responsibility to maintain and protect the lateral
from the Settler's Canal to delivery points on their property. Settler's Irrigation only
delivers the water to the point where the Layton Lateral leaves the canal. We are
requesting concrete tile to prevent any future damage, which could be possible with
plastic and metal pipe. The Layton Lateral supplies water to Champion Park
subdivision, Summerfield Subdivision, the Davis property, the Hollister property, the
school properties, including two charter schools, one elementary school, and Jasmine
Acres, property owners Jack Laninsky, Ed Bollinger, Norman Cook, and Wally Hedrick.
We respectfully request that you require all ditches to be in concrete tile. The only other
thing I'd like to say is that on my property there, which is Champion Park Subdivision,
that where this -- where this line is right here is all I wanted to sell and have them
develop this and, then, this. I was required to have a master plan for the whole place,
with a city park, and the entrances, everything and I think that on Mr. Moore's property
that at least we should have some type of a plan we could look at, because, as it is now,
there is no plan that I know of, you know, that we can look at. If you have any questions
I would be glad to answer them.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else
who would like to offer testimony on this application?
Powell: Madam, Mayor, I did just want to clarify what ITD means by frontage and a
back -age road. The frontage road -- they are talking about a public street section. You
would have the full Eagle Road right of way and I believe it's about a 20 or 30 foot
separation before you would start the next right of way and it would be a full commercial
local street section and that would follow just parallel to Eagle Road. What staff has
been advocating in this area that hadn't developed yet -- and also, primarily on Chinden,
was the concept that you could have some buildings right up front and, then, bring your
-- a street system through and that's what we are calling the back -age road, but it would
be a public street system to provide future access to -- you know, if the frontage road
were to connect with these properties, a back -age road could be anywhere -- really,
anywhere on the property.
De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 30 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On Mr. Hedrick's property, where is that located?
Powell: I don't know exactly. He's the one that --
Bird: Is he in Boise or Meridian impact area?
De Weerd: It looks like Mr. Seal might --
Seal: I think he's right up here.
Bird: He's in the Boise impact area?
Seal: Yeah.
Bird: So, what we -- what we approve here under Meridian might not be approved in
Boise.
De Weerd: I guess just to clarify that, Mr. Bird, if it's a requirement by ITD, it certainly
would be up to Boise to implement, but --
Bird: I don't think ITD is stating that you have to have a stub to the north into that
property, which was one of the arguments that I -- see, all they are saying is they don't
foresee any accesses at this property onto Eagle Road and Mrs. Sullivan also stated
that she didn't believe that there would be a variance approved by ITD, but they didn't
say anything about having to have a public street go to the north up to the Wally Hedrick
property. That's our requirement. I think that we have -- that our Planning and Zoning
or staff has put onto it.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Commissioner Bird, it came from the
ITD letter that was written by Dan Koontz October 30th and he talks about the future
right of way widths that -- including a frontage road and staff has just always preferred
the notion of a back -age road, but they have -- they were indicating that a frontage road
would be required and that's 120 feet each side of center line.
Moore: Might I say another word? You haven't closed --
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Moore, if you will step up to the microphone.
Moore: I would make this suggestion respectfully. This is a bit of a complex issue and I
hate to see us struggling with it now and, sincerely, my suggestion would be to go on
record that we support the concept of a frontage road or a back -age road and that
perhaps the details will show up in the plan that we submit later, the project plan, and
can be dealt with at that time in more detail. We will all know more than we do now.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 31 of 63
But I don't see any down side to the city by that approach and I think it might expedite
things.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Is there any further information or questions from
Council? Mr. Seal, would you like to address Mr. Davis's testimony?
Seal: I'm sorry. I was outside. I apologize.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address. And were you sworn in?
Larsen: Yes.
Nary: He was on the phone.
Larsen: I was on the phone, but I was out there.
Nary: He wasn't committed to --
De Weerd: We want true commitment. Okay.
Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is
210 Murray in Boise, Idaho. Mr. Davis was asking for concrete pipe passing through
the property for the lateral that exists there now, in lieu of steel and/or a PVC, and we
need to make that transition go through our property and be delivered at the same point
that it basically is now and I don't think we have any problem using the concrete pipe
versus the steel, it's just a matter of determining that new location as the property
develops, but I think that will be acceptable to us.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, discussion? Okay. Hearing no discussion, is --
would you prefer to the close Public Hearing or do you want to sit here and think about
it?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, I guess I'd prefer to sit and think about it. If I understand -- and so I'm clear
from all the testimony, the issues -- when I look at the staffs report, the issues that we
had outstanding to reconcile with were a couple. One, I think Mr. Moore has offered a
very valid resolution to the issue of the roadway. Right now we don't know what's going
to be there, so it's kind of hard to determine if a public roadway is appropriate, we don't
know when this is going to develop, what it's going to be. It makes some sense that it --
that it have some access, but we really don't know what it's going to be at this juncture,
and so it seems a little premature. If I heard Mr. Moore correctly -- and I did reread the
staff report as we were talking, I did see that, initially, it was not really a concern of the
developer here to have those Comprehensive Plan policies be a part of the
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 32 of 63
development agreement. I understand where Mr. Seal is coming from, but, you know, if
it's -- if we are really just talking about structure and whether philosophically it's
necessary, I guess I think indulge us and we will all be happy. I'm not totally sure in
looking at the minutes exactly what the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning
was to remove those conditions -- those Comprehensive Plan policies, because I do
think they are what they have to follow anyway and so I don't see a reason to take them
out. I think the intent is to simply give notice and to make sure that if some other
developer were to come along of what's there what guidance we are trying to provide, I
don't see it as a real detriment to the project. So, I guess when I look at it I don't think --
I think if we agree on the first one and we can agree on the roadway, we don't really
have a big issue here. You know, the issue about whether or not -- at least to me,
again, is whether or not a concept plan is necessary. With the other conditions of
conditional uses or a planned development, I don't think there is really an issue here. I
think it's -- they are asking to zone it to what's on the Comp Plan, on the land use map,
they are asking to allow it to be with conditional uses for future development -- I guess if
I think I understood everything, I think we don't really have a lot of disagreement and I
guess Mrs. Powell, what I'm asking you -- is because that's -- part of the staff report
from you is -- did I just misunderstand that or did I forget something else that -- that was
of a concern to the staff?
Powell: No, I think you have addressed it.
Nary: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And I'm going to agree that the developer has made some concessions to the
staff remarks, but also agree that the roadway issue is going to be dictated by not only
the project itself, but some outside agencies and I think that because the developer has
agreed to bring back a conditional use for each parcel, if they so choose that, or a
planned development that we have at that time the opportunity to address those issues
with more information, so that we can make better decisions.
De Weerd: You know, I think we have really learned with EI Dorado and Silverstone
how to make a better planned development process when the plat comes through and I
hope we did learn some lessons through that and so I guess I feel comfortable zoning
this and would assure Mr. Davis that we will have a plat that comes back, so you will
see what that will look like, and that's what we anticipate as well. We want to see what
it looks like, too, because that's a very busy corner and it will be important to have that
planned development or what will be going in there and so I appreciate the concessions
that were made tonight as well.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 33 of 63
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If Councilman Nary can repeat his previous comments in the form of a
motion, I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item
13. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary
Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move the approval of AZ 03-025, Item 13, it's the Blue Marlin
annexation and zoning request of 57.84 acres and for counsel to prepare Finding of
Facts and Conclusions of Law. The particular conditions of the approval would include
the original -- the original request by staff to include the mixed use regional policies as
outlined in the staff recommendations, to be included as part of the development
agreement for the property, that the 3-A -- that the 3-A development agreement would
eliminate the language for subdivision, because conditional use and planned
development, I think, addresses those concerns. 3-13 of the recommendation that the
conceptual master plan sentence will now say: Development application or a site
specific plan with any conditional use, that the findings will also indicate that the
developer will provide further detail with the application for either conditional use or
planned development as to a road -- as to a roadway system within the project and how
it's going to -- how the traffic is going to be moved throughout this development,
consistent with whatever other agencies are applicable, ITD or ACRD. I think those are
probably all of the conditions that I'm --
Bird: I'll second that. That was a good job.
De Weerd: Would you like to repeat it?
Bird: I think the Mayor is supposed to repeat that, as she calls for the vote.
De Weerd: No. I like brevity. I will say that the motion is to approve Item 13, with the
amendments as noted, for AZ 03-025. 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.
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 34 of 63
Centennial Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north
of West Franklin Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215
residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio
homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 14, 15 and 16. 1 can open them all at the same time. Does
Council desire a short break?
Bird: I would.
Rountree: I would.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. We started late, but we were here at 6:00 o'clock, so if you will
allow us ten minutes we will reconvene at that time.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the agenda again. I appreciate your
patience with us. I will open Items 14, 15, and 16, AZ 03-037, PP 03-046, and CUP 03-
070, and ask staff to comment.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I wanted to spend a little time just
giving you a little preamble to the development here. This property is, as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan map here, it's light yellow. They have made it dark so you can see
the boundaries of the property, but it is shown as single family residential. I just wanted
take some time to point out some of the neighboring uses. You have a large five -acre
sub over here in Ada County. There is an issue of EI Gato Lane. This is EI Gato. And
just beneath EI Gato is Pine Lane also. And, previously, the Council has approved the
extension of Pine Street to the canal here, so that has already been pre -decided before
tonight and there are subdivisions, Castlebrook Subdivisions on the north side of Pine in
this location. I wanted to also point out there are industrial uses to the south. Here is
the railroad tracks, an industrial designation on the Comprehensive Plan. We have got
a mixed-use designation -- actually, several mixed use, and this is high density
residential in this area. This site is currently undeveloped and is largely -- Castlebrook,
as I mentioned before, is being subdivided in this area here and, then, these are the
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 35 of 53
large industrial properties in this area, which brings us to the layout for the preliminary
plat. They are proposing 215 building lots and 34 other lots on 46.4 acres. This gives
us a density of 4.61 dwelling units per acre. And this is pretty similar to what you would
see in like an Old Town plat for Boise city or for the City of Meridian, for that matter.
Perhaps a little less dense than what you would see there. It is a fairly gridded pattern,
fairly regular street intersections, and I guess I bring those up, because I think it is
shocking when you first see it. We are so used to seeing more curvilinear street
patterns, that to see a gridded street layout come through is a little bit of a shock and I
suppose that's why I wanted to bring up some of those items. They have submitted a
planned development request. I'm going to hit on some of the points related to that.
They have asked for reduced frontages throughout the development. They are fairly
regular, 5,000 square foot lots. There are some patio homes that share common drives
along this southern boundary as it comes up to the railroad tracks and they have asked
for specific allowances on setbacks in those areas and particularly the front setback
would be eight foot for the patio homes from the edge of the pavement or the shared
common drive and what this would do is it would leave them more of a backyard and
you can see on some of them they have a shared green space, so there would be a
fairly large open area down here along those units. They have also asked on the street
in this -- you see little strips of green through here, there is a pedestrian connection and,
then, again, little strips of green. What that -- that's a five-foot strip of green and, then,
the house would be just five feet off of that. So, effectively, you get a ten -foot side
setback, instead of a 20 -foot side setback as required by your ordinance. The lot size is
-- 4,980 square feet is the smallest lot proposed. Most of them are in the 5,000, just a
little bit larger than that. And the lot frontage requirement -- or proposed lot frontage is
49 feet, six inches. The standard for the city is 65 -foot minimum. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval of the project to you. At the Public Hearing
the applicant Kevin Amar testified in favor of the application and there were nine
members of the public that testified in opposition. A lot of them did testify about the
density of the project. The other testimony was -- I started to mention it before -- was
regarding EI Gato Lane and there was a desire by the folks that live on EI Gato Lane
that Pine Avenue would not -- or Pine Street would not connect to Black Cat. Sorry.
So, that it not continue this length here and connect. But, as I said, that was pretty
much determined when Castlebrook went in and that construction has occurred. So, we
do have those connections already. Or we have planned for them, anyway. The
Commission made two additions to the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use
Permit. One was stating the Right -to -Farm Act on the plat. The second was a condition
stating that buildings are -- would be limited to one story on two particular properties
and those two properties are here at the far east end of the site. There is a small
residential property between this development and the canal and they were concerned
about two story properties looking into the site. I think you can see that -- you can see it
right here. Small relative to its current neighbors. I think it's probably a couple acres.
And with that I will end staffs testimony.
De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant -- and you did
participate in the swearing in ceremony; correct?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 36 of 63
Amar: Yes, ma'am, I did.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East
Idaho here in Meridian and I am here on behalf of Chesterfield Subdivision. I will start
out -- I will start out by stating with respect to the staff conditions and the Planning and
Zoning conditions, there were additional conditions that I will go over with respect to
things that were asked of -- from the neighbors and we had agreed to, but we have no
issues with any conditions that are before us this evening. We appreciate staffs effort
and the Planning and Zoning Commission's effort to work with us. Also trying to work
with the neighbors in resolving some of the issues that they had. That being said, with
the -- Anna, could you put the area map showing the -- I guess the Comprehensive
Plan? That being said, this project, which is located in this area, which on the
Comprehensive Plan -- we did change the color just for ease of noting the area -- is a
medium density residential area. When we first started working, this was the first 40
acres and at that time the only 40 acres that we thought we were going to be able to
develop in this area, which was Castlebrook No. 1. At the time we got this one
approved we were approached by this neighbor to work on this piece and we were able
to get this one approved and they are currently working on the phase of that, getting the
construction plans through DEQ. At the time that was approved, Dr. Louie, who owned
it at this time, approached us to -- or we approached him, but conversations were
working to work on his property. So, as we have tried to get all these together, making
this whole area one feel and one subdivision. Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1, in
meeting with the Comprehensive Plan and in trying to come up with a plan to be
somewhat harmonious with the neighbors, had a designation of R-4. Castlebrook No.
2 has a designation of R-8, with the interior lots being as a straight R-8 with respect to
65 foot minimums was the lowest. It was not a Conditional Use Permit or a planned unit
development. But the surrounding lots were larger in size and, in fact, the ones along
the Ten Mile Drain are 1,600 square foot minimum and a pathway. So, that being said,
with this project now being called Chesterfield, we are continuing that same theme with
this project, meeting the Comprehensive Plan, which is meeting density residential.
When we first came to staff with this project we actually had 235, 1 believe, residential
lots and, obviously, the density was higher than it is now, with five units to the acre.
With the redesign and changes that we made with the plat to be more in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan and with city standards, we are now at 215 lots, with a
density of 4.6 units to the acre. So, if you look at it relative to the Comprehensive Plan,
it is still definitely on the low side of what that Comprehensive Plan is, which is up to a
maximum of eight units to the acre. The project itself, again, has the lots on the exterior
boundary -- I should say on the east and on the northern boundary, compatible with and
harmonious with what was approved previously, 65 foot minimum frontage or greater.
Along the Ten Mile Drain we have provided lots even larger, again, harmonious with
what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. We are also continuing a
pathway from this location adjacent to -- it's actually on Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District's property adjacent to the Ten Mile Drain. That will be a pathway that will be
owned and maintained by the homeowners association. There was one parcel that
Meddlen City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 37 of 63
would need to connect the pathway in Castlebrook No. 2 to this project. Eventually, we
see that happening with the redevelopment of that parcel, so people can funnel to the
Fuller Park and children also have access to the elementary school there, trying to look
at an overall Comprehensive Plan of what would happen to this project in the future.
When we held that neighborhood meeting, the project looked similar. We did make
some changes to what we had here. At the neighborhood meeting the concerns from
the neighbors was that this parcel was with respect to these lots. At the time of the
neighborhood meeting there were smaller lots in there, more harmonious or more
consistent with a 50 -foot lot. So, we pulled lots out of this area, reducing the number of
lots further, again, requiring a 1,600 square foot minimum home size in there, being
consistent with what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision. The other areas that
were changed were these three lots at that time backed up to Mr. Hanikey's property, I
believe is his last name, and there was also a stub road located at this location -- I'm
going to give up on that pointer. Its not working real well. But a stub road that we did
relocate. All of that came from the neighborhood meeting, trying to understand that this
is going to impact the neighbors. We will also be fencing the entire site for less impact
of the neighborhood association or the neighborhood group and neighbors that spoke.
Some of the issues that came up were with respect to the fencing. At the time
Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 was approved, the concern from the neighbor -- could
you go to the area map again, please? The concern from the neighbor that lives at this
location is that neighbor gained access from an old private bridge that crosses the Ten
Mile Creek. It is not a safe public bridge, it is something that is used for private
purposes. At that time and with this project we agree to barricade this road off, so no
vehicle traffic could get to that bridge. One of the concerns that came up from the
neighbors also was pedestrians being able to access that bridge and we at that time
were asked and agreed to putting up -- rather than a barricade, put up a chain link fence
across the right of way -- obviously, we have to get the issues worked out with Ada
County Highway District, which we have spoken to them and we can resolve that and
also with the fire department to make sure they have no concerns. But they will not be
taking a fire truck across that bridge. That's -- farmers don't take their tractors across
that bridge. It's a vehicle bridge and a vehicle bridge only. So, that was another
concern of the neighbors and we will be putting up a six-foot chain link fence that will be
gated and locked. If the fire department needs a key, we will meet with them and make
sure that they have that -- that information. With respect to these lots, one here and
here -- I know it's not on the map, but those will also be single story at the request of the
neighbor and the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, this project -- we have been
through this process trying to listen all along the way as what can we do, understanding
this will be a change to the area, but also understanding that the city's Comprehensive
Plan calls for this change -- in fact, this is a lower density than what the Comprehensive
Plan could be taken to, which is eight dwelling units to the acre on this parcel. This
parcel has 4.6 dwelling units to the acre. With respect to the project itself, we have
positioned open space areas in locations that are easily accessible to all the neighbors.
We want to provide those open space areas, although there will be a combined joint use
facility, open space, and also storm drainage. The storm drainage will be minimal. The
depression in the ground is very, very slight and it will be across the entire site. So, if
you look at the project, you won't really notice a depression. It will be used in the
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 38 of 63
events, but we will still have to meet the Ada County Highway District policy and the City
of Meridian's policy for drainage within a 24-hour period. I know that's an issue with the
Council members making sure that it's not a standing water situation and that is
something that we are aware of and we are designing to -- and will have to be met at
the time of construction plan approval. Also, with respect to lots in this area, the railroad
track bordered the southern boundary. We positioned common spaces in this location
also to facilitate, again, more of an easily accessible, open space area, providing open
space that is usable for all the residents and easy to get to those open spaces. Now, in
those open spaces we will have playground equipment, volleyball court, we will have a
barbecue area and also an amenity of this pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. So, this
project is a functional project as far as open space is concerned. The open space in
this area -- in this project is nearly ten percent of usable open space, excluding such as
this -- this pond is not counted, its more a storm drain retention pond, it does have a
discharge site, so, again, it won't hold water, but it's more of a pond, rather than usable
open space. With respect to the common drives, we are asking for reduced setbacks
from those common drives. The concern is — and I have seen a lot of these, people use
the drives to park cars and the garage to not put cars in. What we wanted is people to
put their cars in their garage. We drive through Bristol Heights, which is an incredible
subdivision and it's a nice subdivision, but, again, the garages are set back far enough
that people do not park in the garages. We want to reduce those setbacks, so that we
actually require people to park in those garages, not allowing them to park -- the
residents to park on the street. There is sufficient parking for people to visit on that
street. That is something that we discussed with Mrs. Powell and we came to that
conclusion, if we don't want people to park in the driveway, don't provide them enough
room to park in the driveway and make them park in the garage, which is, really, where
people should be. With respect to the other setback, we are requesting -- and I have
spoken with the fire department about this project, but setbacks as required with the
building department or the building code. One change that came from this was the fire
department requested -- originally we had this entrance located in this location that was
requested to be changed because of the fire code or fire department policy and we did
relocate that working with the fire department for this approval. This project is in
meeting with the Comprehensive Plan. We have met with staff and spent a lengthy
process in trying to get this project -- this subdivision to the point it is to today, only due
to the fact that we are trying to be harmonious with everyone involved. We understand
with the respect to EI Gato or Pine -- I'm not sure what -- I think the latest consensus is
this road will be called Pine -- we understand that the neighbors may not want -- they
want it located in a different location than it is now, but that has been set by the
approval of Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. In fact, we are currently building that street
as it intersects with Black cat. So, with that I believe I'd stand for any questions and I
appreciate your time this evening.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 39 of 63
Nary: Mr. Amar, those common areas that are supposed to be the amenities, it says on
the staff report one is 1.1 acres and the other one is 1.2 acres. So, I mean they look
fairly large up here, but I think it's because all the other lots are small. So, I mean it
doesn't seem like, you know, one -- you know, a one acre parcel is more than really a
pocket park in, I guess, our view. And you want to have all these additional amenities?
Like a tot lot and a volleyball court and a gazebo and it'd drainage, too. I mean I guess I
don't know how you can really incorporate all of that into really being an amenity. I
mean it sounds like a great idea, but, realistically, I think we have found a lot of those
drainages don't work beyond drainage to be able to put all those other things in it and
one acre seems awfully small to try to make that a real amenity for 260 homes. I mean
that is a lot of homes and it's -- the amenity is supposed to relate to the homes, it's
supposed to make it an amenity to them and I don't see how that really fits. It just
doesn't work for me.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Commissioner -- or Councilmember Nary, the pocket parks are --
there are -- if you call them pocket parks, there is one located here, here, and here.
The idea is rather than have a centralized park that people have to walk to, have parks
close to people's dwellings. What we are finding is when people live -- where people
live they want their kids to play close to where they live, so if they have to walk to that
area, people aren't as willing to let their children use that. When we do put parks in that
are larger and centralized, the people that use it are the people across the street or next
door to that park. So, the thought was let's break them up, let's use them in different
areas, providing large enough areas for each one that people can use. One acre,
obviously, is a lot of park and I would direct your thought process to maybe Sportsmen's
Pointe, if you have been through there. That is a familiar -- are you familiar with that
common area? It is a joint use facility. It's got a volleyball court and a basketball court
and I believe it even has a playground structure, but it is also a storm water area that
can be used during the high events. I drive through it all the time. People are using that
all summer long. When it rains does it get wet? Yes, it does, but it also drains out and is
functional within the required time frames of Ada County Highway District and the City
of Meridian. I'll also look back at Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. The storm drainage
areas that are strictly storm drainage in that subdivision, those also drain out in a
reasonable time frame, within the 24-hour time period. So, I know you can design them
to make that happen and, obviously, that was something that was specifically
mentioned in Castlebrook No. 1 and No. 2, make sure these parks don't hold water. We
don't want mosquito areas. I understand that. And we have been able to achieve that
request or that condition by our design. So, I have no problem believing that these
parks, although we say one acre is not large, when people are living in an 8,000 square
foot lot, which is an average lot in Meridian, a one acre park is a large area and it's
dedicated simply to a park, so you're able to put -- our thought was keep -- you know, if
little kids are playing in the tot lot, little kids, big kids, they don't mix, little kids fight with
big kids, so put a tot lot in this area, put a volleyball court in this area, put a gazebo --
the gazebo and the barbecue area be more in these areas, so those residents that have
the patio homes have an area to go to and gather at a common -- a larger common lot.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 40 of 63
So, we would -- rather than having all the amenities in one area, put them throughout
the subdivision, so people have ease of access to it -- to a common area.
Nary: But your first statement was is you wanted to make it accessible to the people so
they don't -- if I have got a little kid and your tot lot is here and I live here, I got to go
down there anyway. I mean so -- I mean I guess it seems inconsistent as to what you
said as to why they are so small, but spread out, was the intent to get these people to
focus on that common area, these people focused on this one, and these people to
focus on that one, but if you spread out the amenity to a volleyball court here and a
gazebo here and a tot lot there, well, that totally defeats the whole idea of what you
have. So, it doesn't sound so much like an amenity.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Nary, we -- I guess we'll look for direction from
you. We are trying to provide amenities that, obviously, in a planned unit development
they are saying provide two amenities. Well, I don't know what two amenities are, so
we are trying to put enough in there that this subdivision is a community -- that not just
this one, but it's also cohesive with Castlebrook 1 and Castlebrook 2 and that they really
are a cohesive community. In Castlebrook 1 and Castlebrook 2 the park areas are
much smaller than what we have here, so we are providing much greater open space in
this subdivision than we did in those subdivisions, understanding that there are more
people living in here and that's reasonable to do. I understand that. So, putting
amenities in this area -- and the barbecue area, I would focus that more on this area,
simple because those lots are -- they are patio lots. That's what we are trying to focus
those for, giving those people an area to go to. Tot lots, we can put those in -- I don't
mind putting in another tot lot or something to make this a viable, good community,
something that works for everyone. I don't know if I answered your question or not, but
Nary: It wasn't really much of a question. That's okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: No, it wasn't. Hey, do you know -- are you familiar with Summerfield
Subdivision, the green space right when you go in the front? Do you know how big that
is?
Amar: I'm familiar with the subdivision, but I couldn't tell you how large it is.
De Weerd: I think that -- do you know, Anna?
Powell: Not off the top of my head. I can look on the zoning map and see if we can find
out. Hold on.
Amar: For a reference, when you're using a playground structure -- we are putting
some in, in other subdivisions right now, they are requesting an area just for the
playground, obviously, of about 40 by 40 feet and that's for a fairly large structure, three
or four slides and swings and different things. So, the area for just the structure itself is
relatively small, obviously, in the size of a park of an acre that's a small portion. So,
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 41 of 63
there still is -- we want to provide area that people can run, play, throw a frisbee. We
have a project in Nampa that has about three-quarters of an acre and the park itself --
or the playground structure itself takes one small corner and the rest of it's reserved and
it's also a joint use facility. These are for play. We used to live across the street from it,
so I'm fairly familiar with it, but baseball was played out there, football on Thanksgiving
was played out there. There is an area that really was used by the subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Powell: It would appear to be between three-quarters to an acre.
De Weerd: Okay. That's where my daughter plays soccer several times a week and it's
a fairly big open space. I guess you don't really think -- it's hard to really judge in green
space how much that would be because of the size of the lots, but it is rather big when
you see it and when you get a bunch of kids on it.
Bird: That's Summerfield?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Yeah, that's --
De Weerd: That's a nice little area.
Bird: I don't think it's an acre.
De Weerd: That's what they said, three-fourths of an acre. Okay. Thank you. Any
further questions for the applicant?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Maybe -- and I might have misunderstood, but I understand the frontage on most
of your lots are, what, 49 feet -- are you proposing? Is that what Anna said? And with
an R-8 it's supposed to be 65?
Rountree: Fifty, I think he said.
De Weerd: Anna.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Bird, I'm sorry, I wasn't exactly listening, but I
think your question was the standard lot frontage is 65. 1 believe most of these are 50,
but there is a couple that are 49.5.
Bird: Okay. That's 50 and 49 --
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 42 of 63
Powell: Forty-nine and a half.
Bird: Which 15 or 16 feet shorter than what standard R-8 is. Okay.
Amer: Am I supposed to respond?
De Weerd: If you have a response. There wasn't really a question, just like Councilman
Nary.
Bird: Yeah. Go ahead. You're welcome to respond
De Weerd: We are just making statements up here.
Amar: With respect to the lot frontages, understanding that these all are smaller lot
frontages, if I might direct you to this -- these lots in -- from here to approximately here
are 65 feet wide or greater. No. I take that back. These are 60 feet wide or greater.
These lots from this location to here are 70 feet wide or greater. The radius is maybe a
little different. The smaller lots -- and, again, on the exterior here, the same situation.
The smaller lots are when you get into the subdivision and we are offsetting those
smaller lots by the additional open space and the additional amenities. So, in order to
meet the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan of up to eight units to the acre, we can't do
that with a straight R-8 zone, it's physically impossible to get up to eight units to the
acre. As you can see here, this has 4.61 units to the acre and, obviously, these lots are
smaller than what is your R-8 zone. So, again, we are trying to be consistent with what
is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. A large part of that, I believe, with this area, it's
next to a future commuter rail or what's hoped to be a future commuter rail, so the
density in these areas needs to be higher to justify that -- the added expense or the
viability of a commuter rail. So, I don't know if that's a response, but at least it's an
explanation of how we got to where we are at today.
Bird: Can I follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: I understand why you come in like that, but I have a real problem with a 49 foot
frontage or 50 foot frontage, whatever you want to call it. It don't leave much frontage
for the driveway to get up onto your deal or -- I don't know. I realize you don't get eight
lots in an R-8 to a deal, because you'd have to take out all your other stuff for your
driveways and everything. But I have a problem with that narrow frontage on the
majority of the lots.
De Weerd: Is there any further questions at this point? Okay. Or any further
statements you want make? Okay. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 43 of 63
De Weerd: I do have a few people signed up. Is there a Gary Schweiger? Schweiger.
Judy.
Schweiger: I'm his wife Judy. Madam Mayor and Council, I'm Judy Schweiger and I
live at 3515 West Pine. Anna, could you put that other -- the other one. Our property is
this parcel and this parcel. We also farm the parcel across -- we lease this parcel and
the 12 up to Ten Mile. West Pine from the ditch to Ten Mile is private road owned by
seven people. All of it is farm use. The Wilders have sheep and the Jensens have
pigs. So, we have a lot of agricultural issues and I think probably -- there was a lot of
protest at Planning and Zoning. They addressed some of their concerns, I think, to the
satisfaction of some of the other neighbors near Black Cat. Our main concern is along
the ditch we are very concerned about trespassing on West Pine, which is a gravel road
that we all privately own. We are concerned about children -- there being dogs, about
children trying to cut through to go to the school and they did address that with the
signage and with the gate that's supposed to be blocking -- chain link fencing. What we
are concerned with, along the ditch there is 1,600 square foot homes that will have to be
two story and my understanding is from the last hearing that the fencing is only going to
be four feet high. I believe see-through vinyl fencing and, then, the walking path on the
ditch and we just feel like that is -- we'd like to see one-story houses. We'd like to see a
six-foot fence on a berm, so that we have protection between the agriculture and this
many people living in this small area and we all have homes that are valued at
approximately 300,000 and we are also very concerned about the value of our homes.
And so that is our main concerns about our area. The other thing I'd like to address is
the eight -foot frontages. My husband and I are developers and builders and our
experience is that that leads to absolute disaster. People pull out, they are parking,
they don't have room to park in their driveway, they don't have room for guests, they
block the mailman, they block the garbage trucks, there is trikes and bikes everywhere.
It just becomes a ghetto type situation. And we strongly feel that that is a very bad plan.
Those are my main issues.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any questions? Thank you. Okay. Rick or Faith
Jensen. If you will just state your name and address.
Jensen: My name is Rick. Jensen. I live at 3720 West Pine.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jensen: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I appreciate your taking the time to listen to
me. If I could have that other slide, that's a little bit better for me. Not that one. There
we go. Now I got to position myself. Oh, yeah. Here we go. Okay. I live right here.
This is my property. And if you can see those dark spots right there, down there in the
corner, that's my house. And if you take a look at this piece of property right here and --
oops. Right here. And that dark spot, that's his house. So, the proximity between my
house and this subdivision that's going to go in and these double story homes is just the
same distance here and from the developer I'd appreciate the same consideration for a
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 44 of 63
single story -- single story homes on that -- on that edge of the subdivision as they did
down here in this corner in this area of the subdivision. That's one of my concerns. The
other one I echo the concerns of the Schweigers with the ditch here. That's a real
issue. As you can see with all this subdivision going in all around us, we are rapidly
becoming the fish in the fish bowl and the level of privacy that we think would be
appropriate would be a six foot berm, non -see-through fence along this ditch area and
around this corner. The other concern that the developer talked about, an issue, was
the walking path and I guess he could clarify that for me if I'm wrong, but I assume that's
going to be on the west side of this ditch and that defeats the purpose -- I was thinking
they were going to do about fencing here and restricting the footpath and foot traffic
down here to this private lane and on down to Pine -- on down Pine and down to the
high school. The high school is right down Pine Street there and, then, there is, of
course, the elementary school up there in the corner. You can see it -- the laser pointer
is not working for me here. And this one's too smart for me. Oh, there it is. So, I have
a real issue along the ditch here. I haven't been approached from anybody about a foot
path along from here down and I guess it's my hope that if there is a foot path it goes
this way and not continue down the ditch there. This individual, if you look at that black
spot right there, I'm sure he -- he's within 15, 20 feet of that ditch, I mean his house has
got a deck that goes pretty close to the ditch, so a foot path wouldn't go in there. My
access to my property, my lane -- my driveway, if you will, is right on the ditch also
again, an easement from the irrigation company. So, to head down the ditch beyond
this point is going to be a challenge with the property owners on both sides. So, that's
what I'd ask of the developer is the consideration along this area here for the privacy of
the property owners on this side of the -- on the east side of the development. For the
Council -- Councilman Nary and Councilman Bird, I also --
De Weerd: If you could summarize. I'm sorry.
Jensen: The density, the housing density I think is too much for this amount of ground.
The reducing the lot sizes, the frontages and I think as opposed to squeezing in more
houses -- fewer houses and accent the amenities for a better development. Thanks for
your time. And just a last comment, I hope you got my letter that we submitted. Okay.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Jensen? Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next person
we have -- is Tom Noll here? Tom, it says you're representing EI Gato neighborhood.
You can have five minutes.
Noll: Hey, that's pretty generous of you. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mrs. De Weerd and
thanks members of the Council. My name is Tom Noll, N -o-1-1. I live at 5947 EI Gato
Lane. I'm representing the EI Gato neighborhood. There is about 25 people. I can
show you where it is. It's this neighborhood here. This is Black Cat and it's this area in
here. As I said there is 25 people. I have visited all of them. There is not a single one
is in support of this subdivision. There is some issues -- and Mr. Amar makes it sound
like there were some harmonious public meetings and so on. I worked with the -- I
didn't work with Anna Powell, but I called the Planning and Zoning and asked for the list
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 45 of 63
of the folks that were notified of -- by the developer and through all these subdivisions,
Castlebrook and Chesterfield, not a single EI Gato resident was ever directly notified.
So, maybe they were harmonious meetings, but we weren't there and that's an issue
that we have. We have -- we are very concerned about the traffic and -- because of all
these -- the Castlebrook and the Chesterfield Subdivisions, there is only one entrance --
and I guess the word is egress, but it's right there opposite our street and even though
the traffic study suggests that there will be no traffic down EI Gato Lane, we know there
was no measuring on EI Gato Lane and members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission asked incredulously why would anyone go west and I guess they are
unaware of it, a Costco is going to be built in Nampa and the Nampa center is out there
and we are concerned that there will be traffic on our neighborhood street. What we --
I'm not going to take up all the time and talk about the issues, because they are in the
public record with our letters and such. I do want to emphasize that in the entire
process, the planning process, no EI Gato resident was ever notified by the developer,
by ACHD, by Planning and Zoning or any representative from the Meridian government,
that we can -- and our recommendation -- we have the same issues with the setbacks
and the housing density and so forth and we have an issue with the roads, but as Anna
pointed out, that -- it may be too late for that issue. Our recommendation on this
subdivision is to remand this or return it to Planning and Zoning to review the density
and to present a more agreeable design plan, with more meaningful public input. What
we would like to recommend, just in general -- this is not the last of the developments
that will occur in Meridian and I highly recommend -- just my experience with where I
work and such, we get a much better product when we involve the public and to exclude
us for some reason or another -- well, it didn't sit well with the neighbors and I think it's
not -- you're not going to get the best plan out of the developer or out of -- out of, you
know, our support. So, my recommendation is to consider those issues and to have a
little more thorough notification process in the future. But, as I said earlier, on this
subdivision our recommendation is to remand it to Planning and Zoning to review the
density, review the layouts, and present a more agreeable design plan with more
meaningful public input. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Noll. Any questions?
Bird: I do, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Your road runs all the way to McDermott?
Noll: Yes, sir, it does.
Bird: Okay. It runs through.
Noll: It dead -ends at McDermott at the present time and probably will stay that way.
Bird: It does dump on to McDermott?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 46 of 63
Noll: It does. Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Is it a private lane or a public road?
Noll: It's a -- well, that's an interesting question. It's -- I'll tell you about that. This -- the
street here is a public road, you know, with the ACHD right of way and so on. Parallel
to it -- there is actually two roads right here and there is a dirt road called Pine and a
paved road called EI Gato and they are separated by about, oh, 15 feet, probably.
That's twice the eight -foot setback. But they are separated right now and this dirt road
that's Pine -- it serves these properties here. It actually runs along the front of those
three and, then, down the front of those three and, then, back to a house back there.
Rountree: So, that portion is private?
Noll: That's correct. That's Pine -- that portion of Pine, the gravel portion, is a private
road.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Noll.
Noll: Thanks. I appreciate that opportunity.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to provide
rebuttal?
Amar: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Again, for the record, Kevin
Amar. In response to some of the questions that were raised, I will try to take those in
order and answer some of the questions that were raised. Mrs. Schweiger -- is that --
asked on a couple of the questions with reference to how do you access the school
which is located over here in -- I forget the name of the subdivision, but behind Fuller
Park.
De Weerd: Parkside Creek.
Bird: Parkside Creek.
Amar: Parkside Creek. Thank you. With Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 we provided a
pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. Now, that did terminate at its eastern boundary, but
Meddian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 47 of 63
we also will be providing and have entered into a license agreement with Nampa -
Meridian Irrigation District for a crossing that will connect this subdivision, Castlebrook
2, Castlebrook 1, and the future Chesterfield Subdivision to the public city pathway in
Fuller Park, which gives access to the school and kids getting to the school. So, the
concern of kids cutting through Pine to get to the elementary school is -- I think is a
question that we have resolved with respect to -- kids can get through to that school
across an access point that we are providing to Fuller Park. We understand Pine is a
private road and for that reason we are fencing it off from public use. We are restricting
Pine, as much as we can, from public use. No traffic will be on there, there will be no
trespassing signs, we have fences up to keep people from doing that. With respect to
the pathway along Ten Mile Creek, the four -foot vinyl fence on that, similar to what is
seen in Bridgetower, is simply to have a vision -- or vision from the home to the
pathway, so it does not become a safety corridor -- or an unsafe corridor. It's similar to
what's done in many of the areas within Meridian. So, for that reason we did not do a
six-foot fence, we did not do a berm, we wanted to be able to see that pathway. The
1,600 square feet on the lots adjacent to Ten Mile -- again, that was consistent with
what was approved at Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. Those lots are larger. They can
build very well on all those lots a 1,600 square foot house that is single story. We did
not restrict those to single story, simply because that was not -- we are trying, again, to
be harmonious with what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, carrying that
through. With respect to the reduced parking issue asked about, that was something
that we came up with trying to get people -- if you reduce the parking -- you can't reduce
to anything less than 20 until you get below ten or eight feet, because people still think
they can park in that area. We don't want those -- Anna, could you put up the
subdivision map? That reduced parking is only for the lots that have the common drive.
We do not want people using those common drives as parking areas. For that reason
we restricted the parking. All of the other lots within the subdivision will have the 20 -foot
setback for the garage, so people can park in their front driveway. But if you let them
park in those common drives, the concern was they would use those common drives for
parking, rather than their garages. So, that was a solution that we came up with for the
reduced parking. With respect to Mr. Jensen, the walking path -- and I understand he
lives approximately in this location. So, he had two concerns, one being the house
location from -- to his southwest, which is a common area, so there will be no houses
built across or kitty-corner from his property. It is a common area, which I think will
answer some of his concerns. Also, the walking path will terminate at this location and
will connect to the sidewalk, which will allow people to walk down the sidewalk and,
then, through Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 to get to the park and get to the school.
We have no plans to put a pathway and I don't believe the city has any plans at this time
to put a pathway along Ten Mile Creek. That's private property, we understand that,
and we respect that. We were just trying to provide something that may happen in the
future when property does develop. That whole area -- in fact, there are parcels for sale
in that -- along the private Pine Street now. The church owns some property. It is
listed. I do not know plans for a development of that, but it's, obviously, an area that is
looking at redevelopment and many of the neighbors already have their property for
sale for redevelopment. We have Berkeley Square that was redeveloped at a higher
density than we have. Mosher Farms, another development in there that was -- is also
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 48 of 63
a higher density and smaller lot than we have on average. Also, the project across the
street from that, to the -- I guess it's in the north -- or southeast corner of Pine and Ten
Mile that is actually four-plexes and commercial and, again, it's a higher density than
what we currently have. So, it is an area of change and it is an area of redevelopment
that I think people are aware of. With respect to Mr. Noll's questions, with respect to
notification, in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 -- Anna, could you put up the -- thank you.
In Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 when this did go through we did notify the neighbors.
We held neighborhood meetings on all of these, which is -- I understand it's not a City of
Meridian requirement, we do think it's a good idea, for that reason we do hold
neighborhood meetings, we do try to get input from the neighbors. All of these projects
have been affected by those neighborhood meetings and all of them have had changed
due to those neighborhood meetings. So, we did that mailing list from the City of
Meridian who -- we mail to the same people that Meridian mails to. At the time that
Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 came in, many of these neighbors across the street to
the west of us did come out. There were -- it was about a year and a half ago, but if I
remember correctly there were four neighbors from across Black Cat to the west that
did come and testify with respect to this project. So, those neighbors were notified and
some did come and testify with respect to Castlebrook. We understand the frustration
on Tom Noll's part. I'm not sure where he lives, but, obviously, it's further down EI Gato.
EI Gato is a residential street. With the — with this project, Castlebrook 1, we do have to
make improvements to Black Cat Road at the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin.
Those will be turn bays and additional areas for traffic to flow, making it easier to go to a
major collector. EI Gato is not a collector, it's more of a residential street. It will make it
easier to go to either Franklin or Cherry Lane and access -- access to the west of this
process -- this project. So, although we may not have answered all -- or even been able
to come to a resolution with all the neighbors, we have listened to their concerns, we
are trying to mitigate their concerns by providing -- by providing some solutions to their
questions, by putting up fencing, by making lots larger, by requiring minimum square
footages, adding amenities to this project. With respect to the PUD and things that we
are asking, we are asking these trying to come up with a project that ultimately will
benefit the city. The eight foot parking setback -- if we make that a 20 foot setback -- I
don't know that I care, I just don't want those common driveways to become places
where people park, I want those common driveways to be driveways, people access
their house and move on. The lots that sit -- could I have that map up one more time?
The lots that sit here are set so there is a minimum of 100 foot frontage for each lot,
which, obviously, gives enough room for guests and visitors to park in front of that lot.
So, we feel that we have a project that has been thought out. We have worked hard
with staff, we have worked hard with the fire department trying to come up with solutions
for as many of these questions that have arisen. The density is something that has
been looked at, it was actually reduced from the initial proposal. The lot sizes, Mr. Bird -
- Councilmember Bird was concerned about, is similar to many of the projects that they
are going through. Paramount has smaller lots than many of these. As I mentioned,
Mosher Farms and Berkeley Square, Tuscany Village -- a lot of the projects that are
coming through have some smaller lots, which gives you diversity within the community.
Across the street from this we have Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, which has the larger
lots and Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1, which is even larger yet. So, with the
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 49 of 63
consistency of all these, we are trying to provide a broad range of what can people do
and what -- leave people's options open. We appreciate your time and I would be
happy to stand and answer any further questions and if I did not address some of the
concerns from the neighbors, I would be happy to address those also.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have no question and I, actually, have a comment. It relates nothing to this
particular subdivision, but you did mention in your discussion that -- when you were
talking about pathways that there is a concept or a design for Castlebrook to cross Ten
Mile and connect with Fuller Park. I'd just point out to you that Fuller Park is neither
owned or operated by the City of Meridian and as far as I know Western Ada Recreation
District, who owns and operates that park, has not been contacted by the developer and
the touchdown point, even though it is along the drain, is owned by Western Ada
Recreation District, not Nampa -Meridian Irrigation.
Amar: I'm sorry, the -- would you state that last -- I just didn't --
Rountree: The ownership of that property is Western Ada Recreation District, not
Nampa -Meridian Irrigation. So, I would suggest that you get a hold of Western Ada
Recreation District if, in fact, you're committed to that by virtue of your subdivision
approval. They might have something to say about that.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, we will contact Western Ada
Recreational District. The comment with respect to who owns the property that we are
putting our pathway on, the Ten Mile Drain -- there is a hundred foot swath all along the
Ten Mile Drain that is actually owned by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. It was
deeded to them from the Bureau of Reclamation in 1992, 1 believe. So, in order for us
to put a pathway on that -- the southern side of that ditch, we do have to get access
from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. We will not be building anything on the
Western Ada Recreation District's property. We will connect into that public pathway
that is on their property, but all of the construction will be within the Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District to drain and we will contact Western -- is it Western Ada --
Rountree: Recreation District
Amar: -- Recreation District to coordinate. I spoke with them -- or a representative from
them when we first went through and their comment was as long as you are not
constructing anything on our property, we don't care. So, all we are really doing is
providing access for the residents to that park and that was facilitated with a license
agreement from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. And, again, I know this doesn't
have anything to do with this project, but just as a --
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 50 of 63
Rountree: I just point that out.
Amar: I appreciate it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Or statements or comments or --
Nary: We will get to those.
De Weerd: Okay.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything from staff?
Powell: Just that I live on a 4,000 square foot lot and I love it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Another statement.
Bird: I live on an 8,000 and it's too big.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for the purposes of discussion, you know, the density -- I understand what
the neighbors' concerns are about density and if I lived on EI Gato Lane I'd probably say
the same thing Mr. Noll is saying. I don't know that it -- I can't look in a crystal ball and
know whether or not anybody's going to drive down that road significantly. Realistically,
it appears that there is not real value to drive down that road just to get to McDermott to
go left or right anyway. I mean, again, I don't know if there is a train there, if there is
really rail there that may be a cut -through place. So, I understand that that type of traffic
could occur. The density here I don't really have a concern with, but I guess what I'm
kind of stuck on is the -- really, the design of these lots is small, smaller, and smallest. I
mean it doesn't have -- it doesn't have, really, a feel of variety. I think the ones Mr.
Amar cited either are a very self-contained, very small development, like Mosher Farms
or Berkeley Square that is, really, a fairly small self-contained development that only
has one housing type in it or ones like Paramount that have 800 homes in it. So, they
really -- I mean neither one is a very fair comparison to me as to why this one fits the
character of this area and all of the lots are fairly small and reduced, other than some
that are along some people's homes and the rest of them are pretty small and the
amenities that are being considered in relation to the smaller sizes don't appear to me to
really provide the level of appropriate use or access from a variety of homes. I mean
this -- Mr. Amar's testimony is each one of these areas was intended as common space
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 51 of 63
or open space predominately for the people around the adjacent area, but, yet, their
amenity really isn't clear at all as to what it's supposed to be. You know, if this green
space was bigger, that might be more of an enticement to these folks. If this green
space is bigger, that would appear to me to be more of an enticement for usage, but this
amenity is really supposed to be an amenity and I guess I'm just not feeling that from
the testimony that's been presented that it's really meeting the intent of what amenities
are supposed to be to allow you to deviate from what's required. I think we all know --
and Mr. Amar is right that an R-8 really doesn't get you eight units per acre. I mean I
think we all understand that with setbacks and the other requirements. But these small
patio homes don't have the same level of concern maybe that Councilman Bird had to
me, as an option and a variety, but the rest of these -- and, again, I don't know, maybe
it's just your drawing, but the way the rest of these are presented, they look like pretty
small postage stamp lots for pretty small homes that are going to be neighbor to
neighbor and no significant variety of design or anything else in this project and I -- and
that's the hard part I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling is the density amount
doesn't concern me as much as the design of how this is all placed, with very little
thought as to variety or mixes of housing.
Amar: Do I get to respond to any of this?
De Weerd: No. Unless they have a question for you. Any further questions. Do you
wish to hear from Mr. Amar?
Nary: Sure.
De Weerd: Go ahead.
Amar: Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Mayor. To respond to Commissioner
Nary. The reason I bring up Paramount or Heritage Commons or some of these other
projects is looking at this area I understand that those projects have 800 homes in them
and so their variety is greater, but this project -- and when I started this -- we started out
with 40 acres out here and that first 40 acres has a density of 2.8 units to the acre. The
next person came and said do you want to do ours and that has a density of about 3.4
units to the acre. This project has a density of 4.6 units to the acre. So, if you combine
all those together, the density is still below three units to the acre. So, this area, really,
should be looked at as a complete subdivision. Although they were approved in three
separate subdivisions, it still is one area and it still provides in one -area lots that are
larger down to the patio home lots that we are providing in this subdivision. For that
reason I brought up Paramount, I brought up Heritage Commons, I brought up Tuscany
Village, just to compare to subdivisions that -- understanding they were approved in one
large subdivision, but they are still similar to what we are doing tonight and with respect
to this site, we have, obviously, the railroad tracks on the south, EI Gato on the -- or
Pine on the north, and along -- really, a long skinny piece, so we are trying to, within
that piece, be -- I don't know if creative is the right word, but design within that -- within
those confines. So, that was what I would hope. When you look at these, look at this
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 52 of 63
as a whole area of what has been approved out here, again, from the same developer
trying to be consistent for the whole area.
Nary: Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no more further comment, I move that we close AZ 03-037, PP 03-46,
and CUP 03-070.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on 14, 15 and
16. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Is there any discussions? Or comment? Statements?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: As a comment, I agree with the comments that Councilman Nary made. I
know it's a tough site, I know it's theoretically consistent with the Comp Plan. I think one
of the things I sense from past actions of the city in these kinds of things is that they are
looking for creative approaches, some innovative design details, to compensate for the
desires and the requests being made of the city in terms of waiving a number of
requirements for subdivisions in terms of setbacks and road widths and frontages and
side yard setbacks and those sorts of things and I guess I just don't see that that's
happening with this particular development. So, I don't have favorable view of this
particular proposal. With respect to the roadways that -- the roads are public roads.
Anybody in the county is welcome to use any of these roads at any point in time as they
develop, so that's not at issue and my concern.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 53 of 63
Nary: I guess what I'm thinking -- and I don't know what the rest of the Council thinks.
Again, I understand -- I think what Mr. Amar's presentation there is -- there is some
merit to what they are attempting to accomplish here and I understand his argument
that there are other properties adjacent to this that if you look at it as a whole it provides
some variety of housing. The problem is -- and it's not his fault, it's not the developer's
fault, but they aren't one project. I mean they are three different projects and they have
to sustain themselves, they have requirements to meet on their own, and although it
would be nice to be able to attach Castlebrook 1 and 2 and say this is just phase three,
it really isn't. But I don't think it's totally -- I mean it's a totally poor concept and that it
can't be looked at and so I guess I would be more inclined to remand this back to
Planning and Zoning with some recommendations for redesign, rather than simply a
denial, because I do think, again, the intent of the density and what was on master --
what's on the Comprehensive Plan I think you're attempting to get there. Again, I just
have some concern with the design, the mixture, but I don't know what everyone else
thinks.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would agree with the comments that Mr. Nary has given to us
in the sense that if you look -- if you take the subdivisions that are mixed use that were
represented, there is an overall theme and a feel and an overall connection of all of the
amenities together and so while in theory you might be able to make that connection, in
reality you can't -- I can't. I can't make the connection to those other subdivisions in the
sense that this is just that smaller zoning area and so density -wise I have -- I
understand the R-8 zoning and while I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I do
with the smaller lot sizes and so would agree that the concept is there and I think that a
remand would be -- would be prudent for us.
De Weerd: Okay. When you make a motion, you need to give some direction for P&Z
and for the applicant in what you're looking for, so do I have a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we remand Item 13, 14, and 15?
De Weerd: Fourteen, 15 and 16.
Nary: Fourteen, 15 and 16 back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review on
the design, I guess -- I guess primarily on the design in regards to both the amenities
that are being requested, the reduction in lot sizes and frontages, for them to reevaluate
on mixtures of housing styles and sizes of property for development and, again, for the
open space, for them to review the open space and whether a greater or variety of open
space should be required. I don't think we discussed the roadway system, but I think
they are going to have to evaluate the roadway system as part of the design of the
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 54 of 63
overall design of the current project and I think that would cover enough. If you think --
do you need anything else for direction, Mrs. Powell?
Powell: Could you clarify the last statement regarding the roadways?
Nary: Well, we didn't have a lot of information about the roadway system, the internal
roadway system and whether or not -- I just assumed that as part of a look at the
design, variety of density, the location of the amenities and open space, that roadway is
probably going to be a part of that. I don't think we have expressed any concern with
the roadway itself, but I don't know who you can redesign the property without at least
addressing whether the roadway system is still appropriate for whatever the design they
look at.
Powell: And just a couple -- one other question.
De Weerd: Anna, if you will hold on. First, can I get a second before we have
discussion?
Wardle: Second.
Nary: I think that covers everything, unless there was something else that someone
else had.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Shaun, you seconded -- okay. So, Anna, I'm sorry.
Powell: I'm sorry. If we could -- there was -- I heard Councilmember Nary say that
density wasn't an issue and I heard Councilmember Wardle say it was, so I was just --
wanted a little clarification on that one.
Nary: Which one? I'm sorry.
Powell: Density.
Nary: I think the issue that we have been discussing is primarily more with the lot sizes
and the variety of lots and the necessity for the reduction in lots -- or lot sizes and not
really on density, because I think the density is at least a lot closer to what's intended by
the Comprehensive Plan.
Powell: And, then, one final question if I might, just so I can help the applicant as they
go back or help the P&Z as it goes back through. The Comprehensive Plan does call
for a gridded pattern and we don't usually see that. Is that something that concerns you
regarding the design or mixed feelings or is it just this particular design?
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 55 of 63
Nary: At least for me it is a little startling. But, again, I don't necessarily think that that's
something we have given direction previously and at least for me I don't have a concern
with the grid pattern right now and, again, the roadway issue is going to probably be tied
to the rest of the design of the project.
Powell: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just my direction on the grid way system. I don't think I have a
problem necessarily with the grid way -- with the grid system. My concern is a large grid
of 49.6 -foot lots all stacked up together is a little startling from a use standpoint, and so,
like I said, I could probably become accustomed to a grid system in a newer form.
De Weerd: Is that enough direction for the applicant? For staff?
Powell: Well, he has asked me to ask about lot widths and my feeling from you is it
really depends on the design and the unit types and the mix and the variety and that
would depend on -- okay.
De Weerd: And I think Councilman Nary had mentioned, you know, the bottom portion
of that, he didn't have an issue with, it's more that you would want more of a mixture of
sizes and -- or choices or a transition as well.
Nary: I think -- just to be fair, I think Councilman Bird did at least express some concern
about the potential of the widths there, as well as the parking issue, although I -- I'm not
an engineer, so I don't know whether or not -- you know, what Mr. Amar is saying is
correct. We did hear some testimony to the opposite effect that it tends to cause a lot of
clutter, a lot of congestion, a lot of cars stacked up at driveways on the street -- again, I
don't know. I liked having the mixture of those patio homes, I just don't know that there
is really enough mixture here, so --
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would also just second that notion from Mr. Nary in the sense
that when I say 49 foot lots, I might be -- I think having them all together in the majority
of the subdivision similar to that is what I have a problem with and so while -- if you
could mix some of those reduced lot frontages into a larger plan, I think it would be
more cohesive.
De Weerd: Okay. Well?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Call the question.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 56 of 63
De Weerd: T hank you. The question has been called. The motion is to remand Items
14, 15 and 16 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Is there any further discussion?
Did we need roll call?
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary,
Nary: Council, if you could excuse me. I found my daughter was in an accident, so I
need to go.
Item 17: Ordinance No. AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed
Saneland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC —
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17 is Ordinance 04-1072 and I will ask the city clerk to please
read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1072, an
Ordinance finding that Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson, the owners of certain real
property generally located at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East
Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Sageland Subdivision and which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council 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. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
hear this ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none -- before Shawn sticks his foot in
his mouth -- is there any discussion? Item 18 was going to be continued, so we don't
need to read that as well. So, I would entertain a motion.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 57 of 63
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance 04-1072, with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 04-1072. Any further
discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Ordinance No. AZ 03-018 Request for
annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G zones for
Kissler 1 Cobbs I Eagy I Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest corner
and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 18. We do need a motion to table this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table AZ 03-018, ordinance, until April 6th, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 18 to April 6, 2004. Any
further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I just have a couple items. I would -- we are trying to get the number in for
the leadership conference. Shaun, are you going to that?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, are you referring to the conference in Sun Valley on the 26th?
I'm still working on my schedule. I'm attempting to attend, but working on it.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird? Still working on it?
Bird: I'm still working on it.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 58 of 83
De Weerd: Okay. And I know Mr. Rountree's answer. I did give you -- I did give you a
copy of the schedule for development of the Centennial Park. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
Bird: No. Let's just get it done.
De Weerd: And the AIC conference is also in the stack of papers that you got today.
Bird: Which conference?
De Weerd: The annual Association of Idaho Cities.
Bird: Oh, AIC. Yeah.
De Weerd: So, we will want to get people registered for that, so if you will take a look at
that. Also, there is an example of the city pin. That's a new design. We will be ordering
those as well.
Bird: City -- is that what that was?
Rountree: You thought it was the stationery.
Bird: I thought it was stationery.
De Weerd: No. It's going to be a city pin. It will also be on your --
Bird: Pen or pin? P -i -n or p -e -n?
De Weerd: Pin. P -i -n.
Bird: P -i -n. Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. And, then, you also have information on the Northwest Community
Development Institute. That's in July. It's a three-year program. And so if you want to
do that kind of a type training for our two newest members, now is probable a good
time.
Bird: Is that another Will and Jerry show?
De Weerd: No, it's not.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: And it does have some elements of economic development and it's a pretty
comprehensive program. So, that is in your packet as well.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 59 of 63
Wardle: Madam Mayor, did you say a three year commitment?
De Weerd: It's a three-year program, but you commit to it year by year.
Wardle: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anything else anyone would like to bring up?
Bird: Madam Mayor, this is something we can talk about afterward, but I will bring it out
now. We -- as you know, we had a nice article from the Statesman on a lady that's
turning 100 years old on the 30th of this month and they are having a party at the
Meridian First Baptist Church the 27th, which is a Saturday, and if you would be so kind
as to make a proclamation for a day and if you would be available to read it I would --
we would certainly appreciate it.
De Weerd: Okay. If you can get me the information and I will have Will start drawing
something up. Just one last thing, too, before I forget it. Next week can I -- or on the
6th I would like to bring an amendment to the ZGA scope for the space study. With Ada
County coming in with their needs, we would like to incorporate that in. Councilman
Bird had indicated that we would like to look at leasing this to Ada County, so we
wouldn't really want to ask them to bear that cost. It will be 4,000. 1 do have information
on that that I would like to bring to Council on the 6th.
Bird: They are going to bear the cost one way or the other, but --
De Weerd: What's that?
Bird: They will bear the cost on --
Rountree: On a monthly basis.
Bird: -- on a monthly basis, but I think that would be great.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, is this kind of new old business or old new business or --
De Weerd: Uh-huh. All the above.
Rountree: Sorry that Bill left, but I'd like to hear something from our enforcement officer
and activities as it relates to signs. There is stuff all over town, continues to be, and I
don't know if its consistent with ordinances, it's inconsistent with ordinances -- if our
ordinances aren't strong enough to take care of some of this stuff, maybe we ought to
think about it. Anyway, I just see signs on landscape berms that don't appear to be
monument signs. We have electrified signs next to monument signs. We have banners
draped across monument signs. We have fence posts with banners. We have stakes
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 60 of 63
in the ground with plastic signs. You name it, we have got it, and they don't seem to
ever go away.
De Weerd: It reminds me of a song.
Rountree: Yeah.
De Weerd: We could ask Joe Venneman to come and join us. I think you all -- I
forwarded you a copy of his summary. It looks like most of his activity is regarding sign
enforcement, but it would be nice if we could maybe have him under department reports
on the 6th.
Rountree: Does he have a losing proposition in terms of trying to control that stuff or
are we not able to control them by ordinances or what is the situation?
Powell: It's a difficult battle for him, that's for sure, but he does spend nearly of his time
on -- I think it's probably 70, 80 percent of his time on signs. He's working a lot. There
are a lot of loopholes. You mentioned some signs that don't look like monument signs
on landscape berms and those might be real estate signs and I thought that was a little
stretch, but there -- there are ways to get a lot of signs on properties and he does try
and keep up with them, but I can ask him to come on the 6th.
Rountree: One of the biggest offenders here, as well as in other communities in the
valley is U.S. Bank and they must have a contract with Bright Signs, because every
U.S. Bank outlet has got a bright sign in front of it and they have been there not only in
Meridian, but in Boise, for months at a time and --
Bird: Years at a time.
Rountree: Or years at a time, you know.
Bird: Go look at that one on Cherry Lane --
Rountree: I don't know if we -- if it's an issue with the ordinances, then, we need to help
Joe out.
Powell: I'll have him prepare a presentation. Would you like him to -- how would you
like him to structure that or -- you want an idea of what he's --
Rountree: If it's a plea for help, that would be fine.
Powell: Okay.
Rountree: If it's -- you know, we have got inconsistency in what our expectations are
and what we can actually accomplish, you know -- just some information -- you know, I
think that there is probably some things that we need to do to help him.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 61 of 63
De Weerd: Anna, if he could come and present those areas that you called loop holes
and discuss maybe holes in our ordinance that maybe we can add some clarity to or at
least give us an better idea that the Council can share signs that they have concerns
with and see if that is some of the areas that he has been having difficulty with enforcing
with the current ordinance.
Powell: I'll do that and I believe the police chief wants to speak to you.
Bird: Well, Madam Mayor, if I could bring something up. I think something like that one
that U.S. Bank -- and I'm glad Charlie mentioned this, because I was going to mention
it. I think we passed a resolution or an ordinance here not too long ago regarding those
being up over 30 days, wasn't it, or -- what was that? Help me remember. What --
De Weerd: I think the temporary sign says --
Bird: Well, that is a temporary sign that they get out in front there and it's bright.
De Weerd: They can renew them, can't they? I'm sorry, chief, did you have --
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a renewal clause that's in
there. I don't remember what it is exactly on the sign ordinance. However, I also
wanted to point out that a couple of years ago when we first started having some
problems with some of the banner signs and some of the other temporary signs that
were showing up, anecdotally, in particular, with the credit union that is up near St.
Luke's Lane, right in there across the street from St. Luke's on the Eagle, we had gone
up, issued a citation, our maximum fine on citations is 300 dollars for general
misdemeanor under the city ordinance and our ordinance officer at that time -- it was
one of the ones out at the police department helping out with some of the P&Z stuff,
was politely told by the bank manager, well, 300 dollars is a drop in the bucket,
considering he made over 1,400 dollars a day on the basis of the advertisements he
was putting out as they were related to interest rates and some other things and he's
not the only banker I have heard that from in the past here, because of how competitive
things are right now. We, in same instances they are willing to take the risk and go
ahead and take the fine, knowing that oftentimes it won't even be near the maximum for
any citation that they get and, then, they go ahead and leave the signs there and we
technically cannot take them off of their property, we can only site them for it.
Bird: Can we cite them -- excuse me, Mayor.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Can we cite them multiple times for -- by that deal or maybe we need to put about
a 2,000 dollar -- I don't know whether it's legal to do that, but --
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 62 of 63
Musser: Well, under the provisions of a general misdemeanor it's usually the 30 days,
300 dollar cap is usually what we have got and we have to go with what's already
existing in ordinance, which puts us into that realm. We can do multiple citations, but,
then, again, the question becomes now are we getting to a point of malicious
prosecution by repetitively doing it and I would bow to legal counsel on what some of
the ramifications may be there.
De Weerd: I think our city attorney is just dying to have his opportunity to speak tonight.
Gabbert: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to
address you. I appreciate being the last one here. Regarding the sign ordinance, if it's
the Council's desire, we can conduct a brief review of it and figure out if it needs some
buffing up. It's my opinion that for the violation to be a misdemeanor, repeated offenses
can be repeatedly ticketed and that has -- that has been done in the past, so everyday
that the sign is left up would be considered a separate violation. They could be
consistently concurrently ticketed. If you'd like to, though, we can -- my office can get
that -- a review of the ordinance and see if it needs a little more teeth to it, I guess, for
enforcement purposes.
De Weerd: I guess if your office would work with the code enforcement and Anna and
the chief, that would be helpful, and I don't know if you can do it as soon as the 6th.
That's in two weeks -- one week.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just bring that up as a potential issue. I don't know if it's an
issue with the rest of the Council.
Bird: It is.
Rountree: And timing is not critical. It's going on, but it would be nice if that's
something we want to pursue, that --
De Weerd: Well, if you can discuss it and, then, get with Will on the most appropriate
time to bring it back, that works. Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If you don't have anymore, I move that we adjourn.
Rountree: I would second that one.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
March 23, 2004
Page 63 of 63
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
I � I �
MAYOR T Y DE WEERD °""""p'"'" ""n,, DATE APPROVED
yOrr 1w+
ATTEST:
SEAL C
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY -CLERK 9 Usr ts� -,Cb c